Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin?

I came across the following statement in relation to this aspect of the life of Christ:

If anybody told you what I quoted above, how would you have responded to this?

Would you have agreed with the above quoted statement, or would you have disagreed with it?

Why would you either agree or disagree?

thats sick and disgusting!!

where is the proof from the bible or egw that specifically says that?

SDA theology, until 1950, was that Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. What SDA's wrote was that Christ was tempted to sin, as we are, but that He never responded to that temptation. I'm not aware of any SDA saying that Christ desired or lusted to sin.

From about 1950 on SDA Christology has also included those who believe Christ took a sinless human nature. This position would be even less likely to suggest that Christ desired or lusted to sin than the traditional one.

perhaps its from statements such as these that we should really watch out for.




im curious as to just what "deeds" Jesus had to crucify. deeds are not temptations. deeds are acts.

I think the idea here is quite clear, even if the language is not absolutely precise. One example is the use of the word "deeds," that you pointed out ("He had to crucify the desires of the flesh" would have been more accurate than "deeds of the flesh"). Another example is the use of the word "carnal." "Carnal nature" is easily understood as a nature impacted by actually participating in sin. The way the SOP puts it is that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our own sinful nature. So Christ had these two natures, similar to us, when we are born again, and partake of the divine nature by faith. Rather than saying His "carnal nature" was kept in subjection, I think simply saying that He never gave into the temptations of the flesh is clearer.

Anyway, in spite of the inaccuracies, the overall point that Christ was tempted by the flesh as we are, but never gave into those temptations, was communicated.

The SOP spoke of the importance of being accurate when speaking of Christ's human nature, so your point is well taken.

i guess we figure we know better.

teresaq,

That was a good and clear EGW quote.

Daryl, where did you come across the thing you quoted?

teresaq, I didn't understand your comment:

A fine quote, if you let her speak for herself - this sentence looks very much like the much misinterpreted "Baker letter". Does this whole paragraph say Jesus a humanity without the inclination to sin? What do the highlighted words indicate about Jesus' humanity and actions?

This was stated by a non-SDA person on another site, which, of course, prompted me to create this thread and quote it here.

i was referring to the part of the article i put and several such statements trying to defend the postlapsarian position which makes Jesus "altogether like us" as i read them. ellen white was quite clear, i thought, in how we should be careful in that area.

then we have that non-sdas understanding of what is being said.

in defending our positions, whatever they are, i dont think we realize how others can be reading them. they are all the more damaging if we dont know what others beliefs are.

if people are coming to these conclusions from our wording of our beliefs, you dont think maybe we should be more careful? and perhaps in the long run it just isnt that important to defend if it can cause others to stumble, or give us a black eye.



do we give the impression we believe this? apparently we do.
in light of that should we be more careful?

There are other statements besides the Baker letter which point out the importance of being accurate in regards to how one discusses Christ's humanity. Since the Baker letter is often used by pre-lapsarians as an attempt to show that EGW's position was pre-lapsarian, citing it in particular is liable to start a discussion which goes beyond simply being accurate, but enters into the subject of what human nature Christ took.

In regards to the site teresaq cited, I saw the following from this site, under the heading "The Historical Adventist Concept of Christ and Sin:



This looks to me to pretty clearly stated.

I'm not wishing to defend the inaccuracies cited elsewhere in the website. Again, we have clear counsel, outside of the Baker letter, to be careful and accurate in how we discuss Christ, and even apart from such counsel common sense would dictate this. However, the website seemed to be clear in what it was trying to communicate overall. The inaccuracies cited seem to me to be a more minor infraction than statements which some make to the effect that Christ took a sinless human nature, or that Christ could not be tempted from within, which is missing the boat altogether.

Regarding the first question, being as careful as possible is good counsel. Regarding the second, it seems this idea could be applied to any belief at all, right? That is, for example, it's possible to make a mistake in regards to what we believe about the Godhead (indeed, it seems very difficult not to, I'd say quite a bit more difficult than the discussion of Christ's human nature). So should we not defend our beliefs regarding this subject too, because it might cause someone to stumble, or give us a black eye?

Another difficult subject is the investigative judgment. This is certainly a subject which gives SDA's a black eye, since it looks to many to be simply a face-saving exercise.

In short, it seems to me that the idea that we should not defend our beliefs because it might cause another to stumble, or give us a black eye, could be applied to any belief. Rather we should defend the beliefs important to us, but be very careful in how we put things, as careful as we can be.

Yes, we should be able to defend our beliefs, however, we should be able to do that backed by the Word of God, which we often refer to, either as the Holy Scriptures, or the Bible.

Unfortunately, Teresaq, I think many Adventists do believe this.

Are you familiar with Dennis Preibe? He wrote a book, nearly 20 years ago, called "Face to Face With the Real Gospel". He is considered a Conservative among Adventists. He is/was (not sure) a professor at one of our schools.... Most conservatives we talk with, think he is correct in his thinking...and this is from the first edition of the book...(he since reprinted it and reworded it, but he told us personally he still believes what he originally wrote)...Years ago, after my husband and I had both read this book, he wrote a little booklet called, "Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisess".... I'll quote a bit of it here...sorry it is so long....but if you read it, I think you'll find it very enlightening.

Here is a linkk to the entire little booklet for anyone interested - Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees .

Tammy,
In what I have studied of his writings, I have not come across where Dennis Preibe says that Christ desired or lusted to sin, do you have a link or sermon...?

As for any Adventist believing this, I have never come across this...
Rick

Jesus took Adam’s human nature after the fall. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations. He did not lust after sinful pleasure or have a desire to indulge in sin.

Physically, Christ was like us - feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we don’t take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations.

Here is what is written on the subject from the Spirit of Prophecy:

".. I. The Mystery of the Incarnation

The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was a real man; He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. Yet He was God in the flesh. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place where on thou standest is holy ground." We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart. And the study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth.--The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 13, 1898. {7ABC 443.1}
The only plan that could be devised to save the human race was that which called for the incarnation, humiliation, and crucifixion of the Son of God, the Majesty of heaven. After the plan of salvation was devised, Satan could have no ground upon which to found his suggestion that God, because so great, could care nothing for so insignificant a creature as man.--The Signs of the Times, Jan. 20, 1890. {7ABC 443.2}
In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and god became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person.--The Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896. {7ABC 443.3}
As the worker studies the life of Christ, and the character of His mission is dwelt upon, each fresh search will reveal something more deeply interesting than has yet been unfolded. The subject is inexhaustible. The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last.--Gospel Workers, p. 251. {7ABC 444.1}
That God should thus be manifest in the flesh is indeed a mystery; and without the help of the Holy Spirit we cannot hope to comprehend this subject. The most humbling lesson that man has to learn is the nothingness of human wisdom, and the folly of trying, by his own unaided efforts, to find out God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. {7ABC 444.2}
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. . . . {7ABC 444.3}
This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1113. {7ABC 444.4}
We cannot explain the great mystery of the plan of redemption. Jesus took upon himself humanity, that He might reach humanity; but we cannot explain how divinity was clothed with humanity. An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but Christ came to the world and suffered all our temptations, and carried all our griefs.--The Review and Herald, Oct. 1, 1889. {7ABC 444.5}



II. Miraculous Union of Human and Divine

Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, that human beings might be raised from their degradation and placed on vantage-ground. Christ could not have come to this earth with the glory that he had in the heavenly courts. Sinful human beings could not have borne the sight. He veiled his divinity with the garb of humanity, but He did not part with His divinity. A divine-human saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood. That human beings might be partakers of the divine nature, He came to this earth, and lived a life of perfect obedience.--Ibid., June 15, 1905. {7ABC 444.6}
In Christ, divinity and humanity were combined. Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place, but humanity by being united to divinity, withstood the fiercest test of temptation in the wilderness. The prince of this world came to Christ after his long fast, when He was an hungered, and suggested to Him to command the stones to become bread. But the plan of God, devised for the salvation of man, provided that Christ should know hunger, and poverty, and every phase of man's experience.--Ibid., Feb. 18, 1890. {7ABC 445.1}
The more we think about Christ's becoming a babe here on earth, the more wonderful it appears. How can it be that the helpless babe in Bethlehem's manger is still the divine Son of God? Though we cannot understand it, we can believe that He who made the worlds, for our sakes became a helpless babe. Though higher than any of the angels, though as great as the Father on the throne of heaven he became one with us. In Him God and man became one, and it is in this fact that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in the flesh, we look upon God in humanity, and see in Him the brightness of divine glory, the express image of God the Father.--The Youth's Instructor, Nov. 21, 1895. {7ABC 445.2}
No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly. In a moment He distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong.--Ibid., Sept. 8, 1898. {7ABC 445.3}
As a member of the human family He was mortal, but as a God He was the fountain of life to the world. He could, in His divine person, ever have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its dominion; but He voluntarily laid down His life, that in so doing He might give life and bring immortality to light. . . . What humility was this! It amazed angels. The tongue can never describe it; the imagination cannot take it in. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man!--The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887. {7ABC 445.4}
The apostle would call our attention from ourselves to the Author of our salvation. He presents before us His two natures, divine and human. . . . He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was his own act, and by His own consent. He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration of the universe of God. He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for awhile relinquished. . . . He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will.--Ibid. {7ABC 446.1}
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1113. {7ABC 446.2}
III. Took Sinless Human Nature

Christ came to the earth, taking humanity, and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 446.3}
Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.--The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898.

(447) {7ABC 446.4}
In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."--The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901. {7ABC 447.1}
When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.--The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. {7ABC 447.2}
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.--Ibid., p. 1128.


(448) {7ABC 447.4}
The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 448.1}
Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2}
What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race, that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom.--The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1905.
(449) {7ABC 448.3}



IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature


The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ in human flesh is a mystery, "even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations." It is the great and profound mystery of Godliness. . . . {7ABC 449.1}
Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. {7ABC 449.2}
He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried. In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature. In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 2, 1905. {7ABC 449.3}
But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.-- The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC 449.4}
Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 449.5}
Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours.--The Desire of Ages, p. 311. {7ABC 449.6}
The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . {7ABC 449.7}
The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.


(450) {7ABC 449.8}
As one with us, He must bear the burden of our guilt and woe. The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. . . . Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that transgression had brought, was torture to His spirit.--The Desire of Ages, p. 111. {7ABC 450.1}
The weight of the sins of the world was pressing His soul, and His countenance expressed unutterable sorrow, a depth of anguish that fallen man had never realized. He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the world.--The Review and Herald, Aug. 4, 1874. {7ABC 450.2}
Entire justice was done in the atonement. In the place of the sinner, the spotless Son of God received the penalty, and the sinner goes free as long as he receives and holds Christ as his personal Saviour. Though guilty, he is looked upon as innocent. Christ fulfilled every requirement demanded by justice.--The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. {7ABC 450.3}
Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 5, 1892. {7ABC 450.4}
He took upon his sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.--Medical Ministry, p. 181. {7ABC 450.5}
V. Tempted on All Points


Christ alone had experience in all the sorrows and temptations that befall human beings. Never another of woman born was so fiercely beset by temptation; never another bore so heavy a burden of the world's sin and pain. Never was there another whose sympathies were so broad or so tender. A sharer in all the experiences of humanity, He could feel not only for, but with, every burdened and tempted and struggling one.--Education, p. 78. {7ABC 450.6}
God was in Christ in human form, and endured all the temptations wherewith man was beset; in our behalf He participated in the suffering and trials of sorrowful human nature.--The Watchman, Dec. 10, 1907. {7ABC 450.7}
He "was in all points tempted like as we are." Satan stood ready to assail Him at every step, hurling at Him his fiercest temptations; yet He "did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." "He . . . suffered being tempted," suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness. But the prince of darkness found nothing in Him; not a single thought or feeling responded to temptation.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 422. {7ABC 450.8}
Would that we could comprehend the significance of the words, "Christ suffered, being tempted." While He was free from the taint of sin, the refined sensibilities of His holy nature rendered contact with evil unspeakably painful to him. Yet with human nature upon Him, He met the arch-apostate face to face, and single-handed withstood the foe of His throne. Not even by a thought could Christ be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foot-hold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." The storms of temptation burst upon Him, but they could not cause Him to swerve from His allegiance to God.--The Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1887. {7ABC 451.1}
I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell on the humanity of the Son of the infinite God. He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset. . . . On not one occasion was there a response to his manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129. {7ABC 451.2}
Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC 451.3}




VI. Bore the Imputed Sin and Guilt of the World


Christ bore the guilt of the sins of the world. Our sufficiency is found only in the incarnation and death of the Son of God. He could suffer, because sustained by divinity. He could endure,
because He was without one taint of disloyalty or sin.--The Youth's Instructor, Aug. 4, 1898. {7ABC 451.4}

He [Christ] took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 452.1}
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {7ABC 452.2}
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.-- The Desire of Ages, p. 49. {7ABC 452.3}
Wondrous combination of man and God! He might have helped His human nature to withstand the inroads of disease by pouring from His divine nature vitality and undecaying vigor to the human. But He humbled Himself to man's nature. . . . God became man!--The Review and Herald, Sept. 4, 1900. {7ABC 452.4}
In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and the moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC 452.5}
Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took
upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. In His own character He displayed to the world the character of God.--The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1896. {7ABC 452.6}

He for our sakes laid aside His royal robe, stepped down from the throne in heaven, and condescended to clothe His divinity with humility, and became like one of us except in sin, that His life and character should be a pattern for all to copy, that they might have the precious gift of eternal life.--The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886. {7ABC 453.1}
He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family.--Letter 97, 1898. {7ABC 453.2}
Harmless and undefiled, He walked among the thoughtless, the rude, the uncourteous.--The Desire of Ages, p. 90. {7ABC 453.3}
Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. This was humiliation greater than finite man can comprehend. God was manifest in the flesh. He humbled Himself. What a subject for thought, for deep, earnest contemplation! So infinitely great that He was the Majesty of heaven, and yet He stooped so low, without losing one atom of His dignity and glory! He stooped to poverty and to the deepest abasement among men.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 453.4}
Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal.--The Desire of Ages, p. 112. {7ABC 453.5}
Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity. By thus taking humanity, He honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, He showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision He has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature.--Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, and the Work in Battle Creek, May 26, 1896, p. 13. {7ABC 453.6}
He [Paul] directs the mind first to the position which Christ occupied in heaven, in the bosom of His Father; he reveals Him afterward as laying off His glory, voluntarily subjecting Himself to all the humbling conditions of man's nature, assuming the responsibilities of a servant, and becoming obedient unto death, and that death the most ignominious and revolting, the most shameful, the most agonizing--the death of the cross.-- Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 458. {7ABC 453.7}
The angels prostrated themselves before Him. They offered their lives. Jesus said to them that He would by His death save many, that the life of an angel could not pay the debt. His life alone could be accepted of His Father as a ransom for man. Jesus also told them that they would have a part to act, to be with Him and at different times strengthen Him; that He would take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs; that they would be witnesses of His humiliation and great sufferings.--Early Writings, p. 150. {7ABC 454.1}
Amid impurity, Christ maintained His purity. Satan could not stain or corrupt it. His character revealed a perfect hatred for sin. It was His holiness that stirred against Him all the passion of a profligate world; for by His perfect life He threw upon the world a perpetual reproach, and made manifest the contrast between transgression and the pure spotless righteousness of One that knew no sin.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1142. {7ABC 454.2}
__________________

VII. Perfect Sinlessness of Christ's Human Nature


We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Our faith must be an intelligent faith, looking unto Jesus in perfect confidence, in full and entire faith in the atoning sacrifice. This is essential that the soul may not be enshrouded in darkness. This holy substitute is able to save to the uttermost; for He presented to the wondering universe perfect and complete humility in His human character, and perfect obedience to all the requirements of God.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 454.3}
With His human arm, Christ encircled the race, while with His divine arm, He grasped the throne of the Infinite, uniting finite man with the infinite God. He bridged the gulf that sin had made, and connected earth with heaven. In His human nature He maintained the purity of His divine character.--The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898. {7ABC 454.4}
He was unsullied with corruption, a stranger to sin; yet He prayed, and that often with strong crying and tears. He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are. Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father.-- Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 508. {7ABC 454.5}
He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege. He required all the stronger divine support and comfort which His Father was ready to impart to Him, to Him who had, for the benefit of man, left the joys of heaven and chosen His home in a cold and thankless world.--Ibid., p. 202. {7ABC 455.1}
His doctrine dropped as the rain; His speech distilled as the dew. In the character of Christ was blended such majesty as God had never before displayed to fallen man, and such meekness as man had never developed. Never before had there walked among men one so noble, so pure, so benevolent, so conscious of His godlike nature; yet so simple, so full of plans and purposes to do good to humanity. While abhorring sin, He wept with compassion over the sinner. He pleased not Himself. The majesty of heaven clothed Himself with the humility of a child. This is the character of Christ.--Ibid., vol. 5, p. 422. {7ABC 455.2}
The life of Jesus was a life in harmony with God. While He was a child, He thought and spoke as a child; but no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him. Yet He was not exempt from temptation. . . . Jesus was placed where His character would be tested. It was necessary for Him to be constantly on guard in order to preserve His purity. He was subject to all the conflicts which we have to meet, that He might be an example to us in childhood, youth, and manhood.--The Desire of Ages, p. 71. {7ABC 455.3}
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898.


(456) {7ABC 455.4}
Christ alone could open the way, by making an offering equal to the demands of the divine law. He was perfect, and undefiled by sin. He was without spot or blemish. The extent of the terrible consequences of sin could never have been known, had not the remedy provided been of infinite value. The salvation of fallen man was procured at such an immense cost that angels marveled, and could not fully comprehend the divine mystery that the Majesty of Heaven, equal with God, should die for the rebellious race.--The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12. {7ABC 456.1}
Thus it is with the leprosy of sin,--deep-rooted, deadly, and impossible to be cleansed by human power. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." Isa. 1:5, 6. But Jesus, coming to dwell in humanity, receives no pollution. His presence has healing virtue for the sinner.--The Desire of Ages, p. 266. {7ABC 456.2}
Jesus looked for a moment upon the scene,--the trembling victim in her shame, the hard-faced dignitaries, devoid of even human pity. His spirit of stainless purity shrank from the spectacle. Well He knew for what purpose this case had been brought to Him. He read the heart, and knew the character and life history of everyone in His presence. . . . The accusers had been defeated. Now, their robe of pretended holiness torn from them, they stood, guilty and condemned, in the presence of Infinite Purity.--Ibid., p. 461. {7ABC 456.3}



VIII. Christ Retains Human Nature Forever


In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. . . . In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son." John 3:16. He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. This is the pledge that God will fulfill His word. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder." God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven.--Ibid., p. 25. {7ABC 456.4}
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

i read the first paragraph and skimmed the rest. yes, i know of priebe. i havent really read much of his material-it doesnt feed the soul. i believe him to be an honest, sincere soul, otherwise, as im sure most "overboarders" are.

egw says somewhere that we should study the temptations of Christ, which this discussion, as well as another one, is driving me to do. thanks, daryl!!



he not only completely missed the point here, he eradicated the real reason.

i thought this was very good and impressive. i wish our brother had stayed with this thought which is a lesson for us.

I would clarify it in the following way: In SDA theology the sinful flesh Jesus inherited at birth tempted Him to indulge the sins common to man, but not only did He resist the unholy clamorings of His fallen flesh, He was also repulsed by them.

Regarding Richard's post, this was put together during the time of Walter Martin's research for his book on SDA's. Non SDA's had publications which listed certain groups as "cults," including Seventh-day Adventism. They had several points they used, including relying upon some extra-Biblical authority, not believing in salvation by faith, and not believing the Christ is divine. The idea that Christ took sinful flesh (often misstated in less precise forms) was used in terms of trying to assert that SDA's had an unacceptable view of Christology.

To counteract this, SDA leadership suggested that no, we did not believe that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall, that this was the idea of a "lunatic fringe," although the following prominent Adventists were among supports of those who held this position:



What Hebert Douglas wrote gives an interesting account of Adventist history in regards to our switch in position. It's difficult to summarize briefly, so I won't attempt to do so, but just caution that one should take into account that there was an agenda in place as a backdrop for the quotes Richard provided.

Regarding the quotes themselves, there can be no question that Ellen White believed Christ took the sinful or fallen human nature common to humanity, a position she affirmed several hundred times. For example:











These are just a few.

Perhaps the strong evidence that Ellen White's position was post-lapsarian (i.e., Christ took the human nature of Adam after the fall) is obtained when considering the historic setting in which she lived. For example, S. N. Haskell, when fighting against the Holy Flesh teachings, wrote to her:



This idea, that Christ took Adam's nature before he fell, is one that Haskell and EGW were fighting against.

Then, a week later, Haskel wrote an editorial in the Review and Herald, stating:



Haskell was quoting from the Desire of Ages:

Then he commented:

Here we see Haskell quoting from Ellen White, and interpret her meaning, in a public paper, to dispute a teaching that he and Ellen White were working on together to confront. It's inconceivable that Ellen White would allow Haskell to incorrectly quote her, given the circumstances.

Other historic evidence includes that Ellen White endorsed the postlapsarian sermon of W. W. Prescoss entitled something like "The Word Was Made Flesh." She wrote:



The theme of this sermon was that Christ took our sinful nature.

There's quite a lot more similar historic evidence, but I'll let this already long post end here.

Good Morning, Richard,
I only have his original printing here...but as I said before, we spoke with him personally, and he stands by what he said in the 1985 edition. Priebe says, Compare his statement here to what Inspiration says of self and pride:



And, on the same page in his book, he says,

I believe it is nothing less than blasphemy to say that Jesus' own will was faulty, impure and unholy. That is what he is saying when he says, "Why would it be necessary to say this IF His own will was faultless and pure and holy? But, if His own will and His own inclination were tending toward the negative, then it would make sense...."

Kevin Paulson, who agrees with Priebe, says it like this:
Statement made on GCOList 2004.

Another statement by Paulson:


Can you see how this thinking does not agree with the Spirit of Prophecy?

Here is one more statement from Paulson:


Ellen White NEVER, NEVER says anything like this!

cringe!!

this is the problem. whatever validity post-laps might have/had many are disregarding the clear warnings of egw and keep going deeper and deeper into what is a mystery and where angels fear to tread.

and so that the post-laps dont feel picked on here and dig in their heels completely missing the point of concern. pre-laps, according to egw went too far the other way saying Jesus could not be tempted at all.

higher/lower nature?

I agree with Tom on this important truth. Jesus was tempted from within and from without in the same way we are and for the same reasons we are. He also developed sinless traits of character in the same way we do and with a sinful flesh like the one we inherit at birth. His experience in sinful flesh teaches us there is no nature so rebellious that He cannot subdue it. Being tempted from within or from without in no way contaminates the character. It's not what goes in but what comes out that determines guilt or innocence. Listen:

A man may be trying to serve God, but temptations from within and from without assail him. Satan and his angels urge and coax him to transgress. {9T 222.2}

The enemy is on the track of every one of us, and if we would resist temptations which assail us from without and from within, we need to make sure we are on the Lord's side . . . {TMK 301.5}

Every one of us needs to have a deep insight into the teachings of the Word of God. Our minds must be prepared to stand every test and to resist every temptation, whether from without or from within. {1MCP 67.4}

There is no difficulty within or without that cannot be surmounted in His strength. . . There is no nature so rebellious that Christ cannot subdue it, no temper so stormy that He cannot quell it, if the heart is surrendered to His keeping. {HP 17.4}

But through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Temptations from without find an answering chord within the heart, and the feet slide imperceptibly into sin. {CT 424.3}

Apart from divine power, no genuine reform can be effected. Human barriers against natural and cultivated tendencies are but as the sandbank against the torrent. Not until the life of Christ becomes a vitalizing power in our lives can we resist the temptations that assail us from within and from without. {2MCP 760.2}

True character is not something shaped from without, or put on, but it is something radiating from within. If true goodness, purity, meekness, lowliness, and equity are dwelling in the heart, that fact will be reflected in the character; and such a character is full of power. {TDG 146.4}

Here's something she wrote:



This speaks of "corrupt principles" and "tendencies to evil."

Paulson writes (from the article Daryl is discussing:

who is arguing that we cannot overcome all evil in our characters?

you all dont see that some go too far?

I agree some go to far. Christ took our fallen, or sinful, nature, but never participated in sin. We should be careful in how we express things so as not to give a wrong impression. For this reason, I like sticking as close to what the SOP says as possible. It looks to me like Paulson has done this.

While it's true some may go to far, we also don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

They go way too far! But that is how you can tell if someone is on the right track or not, is to follow their line of thinking out as far as you can...when you follow this line of thinking out, this is where it leads....to Paulson's conclusions...most people would have a hard time saying what he says, because it is so clearly wrong...but they want to still hold to his belief that there was a part of Jesus that had evil propensities!



There were no sinful passions or evil propensities in Jesus, anywhere.... Again, this is nothing less than blasphemy!

This is the correct reading as Christ had what allowed him to be tempted in all facets of sin, including sexual sins. But yet he did not fall into them even with all the women he encountered, and he made clear that even checking out a woman to see her sexuality rose to the level of sin.

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Good Morning, Richard,
I only have his original printing here...but as I said before, we spoke with him personally, and he stands by what he said in the 1985 edition. Priebe says, Compare his statement here to what Inspiration says of self and pride:



And, on the same page in his book, he says,

I believe it is nothing less than blasphemy to say that Jesus' own will was faulty, impure and unholy. That is what he is saying when he says, "Why would it be necessary to say this IF His own will was faultless and pure and holy? But, if His own will and His own inclination were tending toward the negative, then it would make sense...."
[/quote]

Dennis has stepped over that line that says that Christ had sin or lustful desire in his heart as obviously he did not or he could not be a lamb without sin or blemish to present as a sacrifice. We must always keep in mind it is one thing to be weakened lets say we have a compromised immune system that makes us less resistant to getting AIDS, yet we take follow a path and take care of ourselves so we dont get it from our actions.

Christ took our weakened immune system and resisted the temptation that would have led to death, he didnt let it work itself into a desire so he could go over sin in his mind and his body be filled with lustful sin, but resisted it in mind and body. Thus the mind of Christ was kept free from sin and temptation, yet he still was at the same stage of weakness as we are....

Some people including pastors want to find a excuse for their lustful desires, lets say you go to the beach and on Miami Beach they have sections that partial nudity is allowed. Well if you go there its only for one reason, you cannot really excuse it but some people look to rationalize it. I think anyone that says that Jesus carried lustful desire in his heart is trying to rationalize a sin that has been planted and been allowed to grow in their own heart, what better way to excuse it than to say Christ let lustful desires go into his thoughts and within his heart.

that may be true, but im willing to cut them a break and believe that in their need to defend post-lapsarian they are just going too deep and too far.

when i read such passages, long before i ever heard of pre/post lapsarian stuff i never came to such conclusions and i think i will stick with i read and not what im told it says.

Not even in His flesh?



Is it blasphemy to say that Jesus Christ had sinful flesh? Or "flesh of sin"? Or that He took our sinful nature?

Rather than simply labeling concepts in a pejorative way, I think it would be more fruitful to consider the concepts being presented, and, if you disagree with them, present some argument as to why.



Do you disagree with this argument? If so, why?

He didn't say this, did he? I mean that Christ had sin or lustful desire in His heart. If so, I didn't see it. Could you quote the statement please?

This seems way out of line to me. First of all, I couldn't see where Dennis said that Jesus carried lustful desire in his heart. Secondly, to ascribe a reason for someone's having a certain belief that imputes sin to that person is totally uncalled for.

Say a person doesn't believe that Christ could be tempted with sexual sin. A person could formulate a similar argument to what you're suggesting against you (which would be just as out of line).

Let's just stick to the concepts being discussed here without accusing people of blasphemy or sin.

The idea that Jesus assumed the "form and nature" of Adam before the Fall is in direct contradiction to what Ellen wrote about Jesus' human form and nature. Listen:

He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. {1SM 340.3}

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan's temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted. {4aSG 115.3}

I find it comforting that Ellen makes it clear that the righteous traits of character Jesus developed throughout His life on earth was developed with the same form and nature all of us inherited at birth and in the same way born again believers develop righteous traits of character. Listen:

Christ lived the law of God in humanity, and so may man do if he will by faith take hold on the strong and mighty One for strength. {TM 282.3}

Christ came to live the law in His human character in just that way in which all may live the law in human nature if they will do as Christ was doing. {3SM 129.4}

"The prince of this world cometh," said Jesus, "and hath nothing in me." There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan's sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So may it be with us. Christ's humanity was united with divinity; He was fitted for the conflict by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. {RC 308.6}

God was manifested in Him that He might be manifested in them. Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was. {DA 664.4}

Wait, there's more:

If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. (DA 24)

If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could do this only in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man. (7BC 930) Unless there is a possibility of yielding, temptation is no temptation. Temptation is resisted when man is powerfully influenced to do a wrong action; and, knowing that he can do it, resists, by faith, with a firm hold upon divine power. This was the ordeal through which Christ passed. (3SM 132)

Wise counsel, Tom. Thank you. It reminds me of the following counsel Ellen shared:

The way to dispel darkness is to admit light. The best way to deal with error is to present truth. It is the revelation of God's love that makes manifest the deformity and sin of the heart centered in self. {DA 498.5}

this is what im used to reading. now how does what is being said top this? or why should i trade such enobling elavating thoughts as these for such base, crude ones........?

A little earlier she wrote:



I think these are elevating thoughts too.

Those are excellent MM,

Christ had to be like us and bear the temptation to sin and be capable of sin so Satan could not represent the power of God as insufficient for us. But man in allowing themselves to entertain the sin takes a step beyond temptation, which then develops a desire for it once it had been tasted in the mind which leads to the action of doing it. Christ didnt let it dwell in his mind or cross into a desire to sin, and we have the same power from the divine to resist and become dead to sin.....

thank you, richard. i think that states the issue very well without going too far into "what that means".

actually, that is so good im going to put it on a card for "stability".

Of course this is exactly what man needs help with. How does man receive help from this from Christ, assuming this is not something that Christ ever received help for?

I believe a point of this discussion that is often misunderstood is "temptation", "What is temptation?" Most people believe that unless you find something tempting, that it is really no temptation. For example, that if you don't like the taste of chocolate, then when someone offers you chocolate, it is really no temptation, because you didn't like it in the first place.

This is a really dangerous and false conclusion.

For example, two people are sitting together, and someone comes in with a plate of chocolate candy. He offers both of them the candy. One person loves chocolate, the other one hates it. But, both of them are being tempted by the tempter with the chocolate. The difference is the response from both of them. One reaches out for it, the other pushes it away.

That is how it is with all sin, for all of us, including Jesus. Jesus was tempted "in all points like as we are", but He NEVER found the sin "tempting". We, on the other hand, too many times, find the sin tempting....Satan finds within our hearts an answering chord. He never found any answering chord for sin in the heart of Jesus, nothing ever responded to his temptations.



So, when we are told that Jesus was "tempted in all points", it doesn't mean there was ANYTHING in Him that pulled toward the temptation...it just means that Satan hit Him on every topic from every angle that he could, and still,



This is the point we all can amd must come to... We will not be safe to save until we reach the point that Satan finds in us no answering chord for his temptations...

Sadly, many, instead of admitting that they are not right spiritually, because they still find sin alluring...they try to lower the standard and say that "Jesus' inclinations were 'tending toward the negative' (Priebe, Paulson and many others), so if His inclinations were tending toward the negative, they can feel pretty good about their own inclinations that are still tending towards the negative....but it is all a deception! Jesus never had inclinations that were "tending toward the negative"... I have to say it again, that is just plain blasphemy.

One more thought...I believe there couldn't be a more important topic than this one. Honestly, I believe this teaching that Jesus was "inclined toward the negative" is the OMEGA. We are told that what Jesus is waiting for, to return, is for a people who reflect His character perfectly. Well, how can people reflect His chracter perfectly if they have a wrong understanding of what His character was? Satan knows this and it is his studied effort to get us to have a false understanding of the character of Christ for the very purpose of putting off the 2nd coming...if he can continue to deceive us as to what the character of Christ is really like, we will continue, as a people, to pattern after the wrong pattern, thinking all the time, that we are copying the real pattern!

There are lots of other reasons I believe this is the OMEGA but I don't have time right now to share them....

this is so good!! it states how i feel about this so much better than i can. the fact that Jesus was tempted is not at issue. dwelling on a low view of Him can not raise us any higher than that view. ellen white, and the bible ever dwelt on the perfection of Christ, and that is where our thoughts also need to be.

It's difficult to see how Christ could have been "powerfully influenced to do a wrong action" if His temptations were akin to that of a chocolate-hater being offered a piece of chocolate.



Christ could hardly "share our sorrows and temptations" if they were akin to a chocolate-hater being offered a piece of chocolate.

Regarding the idea that Christ took our nature results in a "low view" of Him, Waggoner commented:



As long as we have this flesh, we will be tempted. Not like the chocolate-hater is "tempted" with chocolate, but like the chocolate-lover. Such is the reality of our flesh. We can train our minds, by the grace of God, to resist and refuse temptations which entice the flesh, but the flesh will always be enticed by temptations; that's its nature (pardon the pun!).

This one is easy when you cant have sugar but still come across it everyday....

'Temptation' is when you are a diabetic and your best friend pulls out peanut butter chocolate chip cookies and purposely places them before you. You have a choice, eat them and go into catatonic state of shock and maybe die, or resist and eat some 'yummy' celery sticks.......and I sure do hate celery during the holidays...

'Desire and Sin' is when your mouth starts to water as you contemplate the chewy goodness and you sneak one of those peanut butter chocolate chip cookies and test the limits your body can take.. then your sugar tallys up at 300 to 350 and you feel like your passing out...

'Confessing and Repenting' is admiting you ate the peanut butter chocolate chip cookies and never want to do it again and you need your glucophage or have them take you to the emergency room quicktime as your knees buckle....

Happy New Year, everyone, enjoy the festivities as I chew on my celery......

Well, substitute the chocolate for sleezy women...it doesn't matter what the temptation was, Jesus responded the same way every time. You find no record of Him struggling with sexual sin, ever. When he saw a provocative women, His first and only reaction was to help her recover from her sin...lust didn't have any hold on Him whatsoever. After all, she was a child of His.

It is true, Satan was there parading sleezy women in front of Him many times, trying to find something in Him to arouse....but he always failed.



If, when Satan comes to us, he is still able to find something somewhere in us, it doesn't matter where, ...if he can find ANYTHING in us that responds to his temptations...then....we are not safe to save. That is why we are still here! Jesus could have come a long time ago, He is only waiting for a people who reflect His character...but unfortunately, many are copying a wrong pattern...and they don't realize it...and they haven't made the connection in their minds yet, that this is the very reason that the Lord has not come back.

When people talk about "the flesh" and how our flesh will always desire sin....that is just an excuse to sin. What is your flesh? Your arms, your legs, your body, right? Your arms, legs and your body, they don't desire sin....they only do the bidding of your mind & your heart...it all has to do with the mind, not "the flesh"....that is why Jesus said, "Let this mind be in you..." and "I will give you a new heart..."

Sure, our bodies get physically hungery, and tired....but that doesn't make us desire sin. Jesus got physically hungry and tired, too.... Clearly we are told He took the nature of Adam after the Fall.

Well...must run! Happy New Year to you all!

Ladies and gent - you know who you are, you appear to be missing an operative factor, over, round and in all this: righteousness by faith, something actually pioneered by Christ our Saviour.

In short, his character was built by faith, as a human, as he pioneered the Christian experience. That that faith was required by him, instead of using his own divine insight, to fight sin, means that for us to know him from inspiration and prayer to the Father through him is to understand how he used "the faith of Jesus" (exaggeration for effect) to bend his human nature back from its sinfulness to his righteous use of it.

I say "bend back" because our sinfulness is a crooked, bent, sinful nature, and righteousness is by definition actually straightening a thing bent which, in this case, should be straight.

As an aside here, I would add to the traditional SDA, and Priebe's, definition of sin, seeing it also as a state of being: you see, the KJV is pragmatically accurate, but not truly accurate on the Greek with "transgression of the law"; it actually reads "lawlessness", if you check eg. the RSV. We were historically and still studiously are avoiding the error of Romanism's original sin, not so? If one excludes inherited guilt from Augustin's original sin, the remaining 3 elements are actually, otherwise correct: sinful humanity is inclined to sin, weak in, i.e. captive to, that inclinaton, and thus depraved, hopelessly alienated from rendering obedience to God out of love without the Spirit of God to assist, in Jesus' name. We have, essentially, a condemned nature, whether we sin or not, and Jesus also took our natural condemnation to the cross in his assumed sinful flesh.

Thus "Christ's humanity" is primarily an issue about salvation itself, not just Christian perfection, which is exclusively of secondary importance. I don't think pre-lapsers allow for the full meaning of sin, before they get anywhere near justification and faith - do they even include sanctification is a Gospel requirement of our faith walk?

I've checked with the GC BRI website, and at this link http://tinyurl.com/subj-justification, half way down, in Part II, there's a subheading confirming that justification by faith is also subject, ie. the new creation of the inner man, the renewal of the mind of regeneration and the rebirth, extending JBF far beyond a merely legal, Fordian Gospel, to actual inner renewal. Seems, though, that this is practically never openly preached and taught in church - we're still shy of Ford and his Evangelical school of thought, which many clergy in our midst still hold to? But, in this really obscure article, whose critiqued view on this precise point is highlighting our public silence on the issue and may have over emphasised the elements of this truth (I support the rest of the critiqued view), here is this truth re-affirmed by the GC as it was in the Palmdale Consensus statement, between the GC and Ford's (then) Austalasian Division, on what "righteousness by faith" actually means in the Bible, and in our church, published just once in the Review & Herald of the summer of 1976.

End of aside

In a nutshell, what those "overboarders" are doing, in the face of the openly defiant & facetious new theology - led by a majority in the Seminary(?!), is trying their best to describe the "faith of Jesus" as used by the Man himself. Ya'know, faith in action...

Never forget either his adopted sinfulness being fundamentally adapted to Christian use, or his divine nature combined with it to - Amen and Amen - link us by his humanity to his divine throne. He had to come down to the level of sinful man for his humanity to be the crucial link in the golden chain reconnecting us with God, his and also our Father.

the basic problem is making the assumption that those of us opposed to the wording and thought of this topic have anything to do with this "fordian gospel". once that thought is destroyed, what is actually written might be "heard".

when did Jesus not have faith? did He have to "develop" faith, or is philipians an accurate statement of what actually happened?

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

the whole point of this, given its context, is about humility, and thinking of others.

this gives me a very high goal to want to copy. the other view just gives me a picture of another Person struggling with temptation-self-centered. Jesus was other-centered. His hours spent in prayer and communing with the Father were not about overcoming temptation, but for strength, power and wisdom to show us the Father, and His holiness, to continually give to others.

"post-laps" have never given me that picture. the bible and egw do.

No, Teresa, I wasn't grouping anyone here with Ford: that was an aside on the meaning of sin, not a point directly about faith or righteousness.

Moreover, my point is that this topic isn't really about what makes a temptation a temptation - that's a nice point, too - but lessons on faith, taught by Jesus himself. Jones individually I think actually wrote a book called "Lessons on Faith": Tom would know the exact title, showing this pragmatic imperative of the truth on Christ's humanity. A truth indeed that is obvious to us all, but isn't spoken of much, eh.

I don't see that the following was commented upon:



Temptation is exactly the giving of chocolate to the chocolate lover, not the chocolate hater! If Christ hated chocolate, and someone offered him chocolate, then He could not have been tempted by chocolate. There would have been no "powerful influence" to do a wrong action. The powerful influence is what makes temptation hard.

It was mentioned that there is no record of Christ's struggling with sexual sin. There's no record of Christ's struggling with any sin. To suggest that Christ was struggling with sin would be to suggest that Christ had sinned.

However, there is reference to the fact that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, and that we should find comfort from that fact. If we are a chocolate lover, being tempted by chocolate, what comfort could we find in a chocolate hater refusing chocolate?

The Gospel is not that Jesus Christ was not tempted, and that we, by some process, can get to the same point to where we are also no longer tempted, but that Jesus Christ *was* tempted, sorely so, as we are, and that He overcame those temptations by faith. Through the faith of Jesus, we also, when tempted, can overcome as He overcame.

were Christs temptations general or specific? was there chocolate in Christs day? how about any form of tobacco, or smoking? if not, then how does the chocoholic or smoker find "comfort" that Christ was tempted in all points?

but my main point is, that i find Christs motivations for resisting sim more elevating to my sanctification than i do concentrating on the fact that He was tempted, or the fine details of what His human nature was.

maybe we are accidently making this into an either/or situation...



when we are really bringing out the different angles to the issue.

According to wiki, chocolate has been around for 3 millennia, in the new world, but it wasn't known in the old until the Spanish brought it back. Tobacco wasn't known where Christ was during His time. However, I'm pretty sure there was sex back then.

On the cross, Christ was tempted to use a drug, during a time He was suffering great pain.



He accepted the results of the working of the law of heredity to share our sorrows and temptations. This He did so we could be comforted. There is great comfort in knowing that Christ knows what we go through in our difficult times. We've been talking about chocolate, but there are more difficult things than chocolate in life. There are times we pass through, such as when losing a loved one, where we feel so alone, like there's no one who understands what we are going through. But there is One, who experienced our sorrows, and can comfort us with the comfort by which He Himself was comforted when He passed through like difficulties.

im in perfect agreement with these thoughts.

I don't know what "this" and "that" are here.

A person can struggle with temptation without being self-centered. For example, consider the case of Jesus. His mission was the revelation of God. Temptation powerfully influenced Him to do wrong actions, which would have been pleasant for Him to do, but Christ "pleased not Himself," but instead kept His mission in view, and, being other-centered, said "no!" and was faith to His mission, revealing God as being other-centered.



Egw was a post-lap. So were the Bible writers.

I know many other post-laps that present this picture as well. George Fifield is one who presented this idea strongly. A. T. Jones also presented it. In modern times, Ty Gibson is one who presents this emphasis.

On the other hand, I also know post-laps (nice term) who only emphasize something like Jesus was like us, and overcame, so we must overcome as He did and think that's what the Gospel is. I think many throw out the baby with the bathwater because of this sort of single-minded emphasis.

When A. T. Jones began his 1896 presentations on the human nature of Christ, he started out by explaining that Christ took our nature so that He could reveal the Father. That's what needs to be at the forefront.

Well I dont know about just 'sleezy women' causing sin, I think its more people seeking the pleasures of sin and let it lock in and affect their minds and hearts away from God...

2 Timothy 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Titus 3:3
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

That is an excellent point, Theresa. I couldn't be further, myself, from Fordism.... And yet, so many automatically think that is what I am, because I believe that Jesus had no desire to sin. For, clearly we are told that He hated sin with a "perfect hatred".



And, we too, can and must come to the point where we hate sin with a perfect hatred -


It is impossible to hate sin with a perfect hatred and at the same time have an inner desire for sin....

Surely everyone has overcome some sin in their lifetime...perhaps it is smoking as an example. I've heard many say who used to smoke, now that they have quit, that they hate it, it is repulsive. That is how all sin must become to us, replusive. Sin was repulsive to Jesus....and so it will be to His people also.

That is a big part, too, Richard, for sure.



Clearly, there are TWO places from which temptation comes:
#1 - From the OUTSIDE - Satan
#2 - From the INSIDE - The evil of our own hearts.

OK, Jesus was tempted from the outside constantly....Satan was constantly bombarding him with temptation. But, because Jesus' own heart was right with God, Satan never found a foothold for any of his temptations. We on the other hand, are not always surrendered to God, and when we are not and Satan comes to tempt us, he finds within us an answering chord for his temptations....that NEVER happened to Jesus.

We were born different than Jesus. Jesus never needed to be reborn. We ALL need to be reborn. Jesus came into this world with a converted heart...we come into this world with a heart separated from God. But that is the beauty of the Gospel! Jesus reaches us where we are, and offers to us, the same advantage He had, that of a new heart, and the strength and desire to live a Christian life.

That Christ had no desire for sin has nothing to do with Fordism. No one would think this is "what you are" because of this.



There are also those who gave up cigarettes, and many years later smell it, and it calls back a former desire, which they chose not to respond to. This is not sin.

Temptation occurs when one is "powerfully influenced" to do a wrong thing. Not when one is presented something which is repulsive. In this case one would be powerfully influenced NOT to do the wrong thing.

It is true that being tempted from inside *could* be the result of one's evil heart, because of our having sinned, but not all temptation from within is due to an evil heart. Much of the temptations we experience from within are due to our having inherited a fallen nature. Christ took upon His own sinless nature our fallen nature. He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity in order to "share our temptations." He could only "share" them if He experienced them.

that is pretty much my understanding. thank you for stating it so well.

i have always understood Christs "fallen" human nature, from ellen white, in the sense that Christ felt hunger, fatigue, etc.. things adam never felt in his pre-fall state.

It is healthy for people to feel hungry between meals. Feeling hungry isn't unique to fallen nature.

In what way was Jesus tempted when He saw a sleazy woman? When a holy angel sees a sleazy woman, does he feel tempted? When someone who is abiding in Jesus sees a sleazy woman, is he tempted? What makes the difference, if any, in how and why these three different people experience temptation?

Tammy, compare what you wrote with the following description:

The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2} End Quote

Also, please consider the following insights concerning inherited and cultivated tendencies, inclinations, propensities:


Above you wrote, "When people talk about "the flesh" and how our flesh will always desire sin....that is just an excuse to sin." How do you reconcile this idea with the insights posted above?

Jesus came into this world with the faculties of His mind and body under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit. That He did not sin like every other child is a mystery that is left unexplained. "It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin." {5BC 1128.6}

The will is our power of choice. It orchestrates all other aspects of human nature. Our will is under the influence and control of Satan until we surrender it to the influence and control of Christ. For instance, the will decides whether our mind is slave or master of our sinful flesh. It also determines whether we develop old man (sinful) or new man (sinless) traits of character.

Here is how Ellen describes the will and it's importance in resisting sin, self, and Satan, and in imitating the sinless example of Jesus:


This will, that forms so important a factor in the character of man, was at the Fall given into the control of Satan; and he has ever since been working in man to will and to do of his own pleasure, but to the utter ruin and misery of man. It was not thus with Jesus when He was born.

However, like Jesus, who decided to be born with His will under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit, so too, we may decide to be spiritually born with our will on the side of God. When we place our will in unison with the will of God, the holy obedience that was exemplified in the life of Christ will be seen in our lives.

It doesn't seem she limits her focus to these things. For one thing, these aren't the issues we primarily have difficulties with.

Here's an example of Ellen White speaking of Christ's taking our nature:



Please notice the underlined portion. It's hard to believe that when Ellen White spoke of the results being shown in the history of His earthly ancestors (such as Rahab, David, Solomon, etc.) she had in mind that they got hungry and tired.

i was assuming my statement would be associated with egws several comments regarding Christ and the various times He suffered hunger.

here is one.


but since we have never had unfallen nature we wouldnt really know if adam and eve did, or did not, feel hunger at any time.

That is the part most of you are missing...you don't have to "feel" a pull to something in order to be tempted by it....check out this quote:



Most people would not consider that a temptation. Jesus saw the devils temptations for what they really were - earthly dominions under the power of a tyrant. He saw humanity full of woe, suffering under the oppressive power of Satan. He saw the earth defiled by hatred, revenge, malice, lust, and murder. He saw fiends in the possession of the bodies and souls of men and yet, clearly she says This was to Christ just what the Bible declares it to be--a temptation. Before His sight the tempter held the kingdoms of the world So you see, one doesn't not need to find a temptation "tempting" in order for it to be a temptation.

This is such a serious point. Most of you have the wrong understanding that in order to be tempted, you must find the temptation "tempting". That couldn't be further from the truth. Just think about it. Are you tempted to murder someone, to rape someone, or think of the many other horrendous things people do... Most of you would say, no, you are not tempted to do those things...but yet, you want to interpret the verse that says that Jesus was "in all points" tempted like as we are to mean that He was! Do you think you are a better Christian than Jesus? How is it that you are not tempted to do these horrendous things, yet you think that Jesus was????? Can't you see, it is your wrong understanding of temptation that makes you try to make Jesus have the same desires as the unconverted man. And unfortunately, there are many, especially men, who want to think that Jesus had the same lustful desires they have......and that that is part of the normal, Christian, victorious experience. It couldn't be further from the truth.

the problem seems to be in seeing this as an historic position. ellen white did unequivocably support jones and waggoner, BUT it was their presentation of the faith of Jesus that she supported.

her writings and the bible are read in light of j and w, instead of j and w being read in the light of the bible and egw.

ellen white criticized the brethern for holding onto their prejudices and rejecting "light" in the message of the faith of Jesus/righteousness by faith, NOT whether Jesus was born somtime back in eternity, nor the views of those regarding Christs humanity.

I agree with you, Teresa...and sadly, the day came when EGW told the church to not listen to J & W....they had gone WAY off the track. They didn't get way off the track over night....Ellen White NEVER got off the track...much safer to read her, you never have to wonder if you are accepting any false doctrine...whereas with J & W, you always have to wonder, "at what point did they begin to lose their way?" "How can I be sure that I don't accept any of the error that they got into?"

I don't have time to post it right now, but I'll post something from Jones that was written in 1895, that I believe was way off...

now that i have jones 89 "faith of Jesus" to use as a template i can study them. i believe it deals only with righteousness by faith and is closer in time to what ellen white endorsed in their message.

This doesn't seem to agree with the idea that temptation is an "ordeal" which one passes through when one is "powerfully influenced" to do something one knows is wrong. Also I'm not seeing why you think Christ didn't find what Satan was presenting Him to be tempting. Ellen White says He immediately turned away when Satan presented this temptation.

Of the first temptation, Ellen White writes that "it was indeed a temptation." Of the third she writes:



So the first one indeed a temptation, and the third one was "the most alluring."

Something to bear in mind is what made the temptations so difficult. It is that Christ bore both the sins and nature of man.

Because temptations do not come from being worse than someone else. You seem to have the idea that only bad people are tempted. The better a person is, the less he is tempted. This is what I'm hearing. And if one is perfectly good, like Jesus, then such a one isn't tempted at all. How is this sort of "Gospel" of any help to an actual bad person?



Bad people need a Savior who humiliated Himself to the lowest depths, because that's where bad people find themselves. They can't lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. They need someone who can reach them, and lift them up.



Jesus didn't have the same desires of the converted man; He had the same flesh, and passed through the same temptations.



Christ had the same flesh. To be tempted is not sin. If the mind dwells on the sinful thought, that is sin.

Christ humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of man to reach man where He is, in order that He might have compassion on those needing help. He provides the help by extending to man the same comfort He received when He was tempted.



If a temptation is not tempting, then it's not difficult to resist. If temptations were not tempting to Christ, then the were easy for Him to resist. Why wouldn't they be? What else is there to a temptation that makes it difficult if it's not that it's tempting.

In the above quote we are told that men cannot comprehend the strength of the temptations Christ had to endure. This means His temptations were more tempting than ours, not less. So much more, in fact, that we cannot comprehend it.

She also supported them on the particular subject of Christ's taking our fallen nature. She also endorsed W. W. Prescott on this specific point. She endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh," which was specifically about the subject of Christ's having our sinful flesh. I quoted a bit of the sermon earlier, and have quoted her endorsement of the sermon.



On what basis are you asserting this? Many people know Ellen White as post-lapsarian who have no knowledge whatsoever of Jones and Waggoner's writings. I'm such a one. I knew this 15 years before I knew of Jones and Waggoner. Just from reading "The Desire of Ages" this was clear to me.



Regarding whether Jesus was born sometime back in eternity, this was something mentioned maybe less than 5 times in all of Waggoner's writings, and I don't recall Jones mentioning it at all. On the other hand, they both mentioned Christ's taking our fallen nature hundreds of times, and both of them considered it foundational to their understanding of righteousness by faith.

Where did she say this?



Or this?



Or this?



Here's something she actually did write:



Far from saying Jones and Waggoner should be ignored because they fell away, she said it was a "fatal delusion" to do so.



We should be receiving with open arms the light that God sent, not looking for reasons to set it aside.

I posted all these quotes, quite some time ago, Tom...and I'll post them again. This is Ellen White talking....not me...



Clearly, from this quote alone, by 1901, there was serious trouble with Jones.







So, the question should not be, “Did Jones and Waggoner lose their way?” Rather, it should be “When did they lose their way?” And that is pretty hard to know exactly, because as we all know, no one goes from light to darkness over night….it is a gradual process.

But, the fact that we know they lost their way, and that we don’t know when they began to lose their way, should make us think twice when we read what they wrote, after 1888, because otherwise, how do we know that we are not picking up the very sentiments that caused them to go astray? For that reason, I think it is much safer to read the Spirit of Prophecy. We NEVER have to wonder, “Is what I just read inspired?” “Is Ellen White really on track here?” We KNOW she was inspired, and we also KNOW that the very message that Jones and Waggoner were teaching in 1888, she said, “I have been presenting it (the 1888 Message) to you for the last 45 years--the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds.” From this, I don’t believe that they had anything she didn’t already have, and I know if I get it from her, I don’t have to worry about going astray.

I believe that Jones was far from truth in this statement, which is from the 1895 General Conference Bulletin ~

Here is another place where I believe Jones is far from truth.

This is Ellen White’s description of when Satan took Jesus up on the mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world:



Ellen White says: “This was to Christ just what the Bible declares it to be--a temptation. Before His sight the tempter held the kingdoms of the world. As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur. But Christ saw them in a different aspect, just as they were--earthly dominions under the power of a tyrant. He saw humanity full of woe, suffering under the oppressive power of Satan. He saw the earth defiled by hatred, revenge, malice, lust, and murder. He saw fiends in the possession of the bodies and souls of men.”

Jones says: “And there at that moment there was stirred up all the ambition that ever appeared in Napoleon or Cæsar, or Alexander, or all of them put together.”

These statements are NOT saying the same thing. Jones is saying that this temptation stirred up “AMBITION” that was IN JESUS, even ALL the AMBITION that “ever appeared in Napoleon or Caesar, or Alexander, or ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER.” Ellen White doesn’t even hint of any ambition IN Jesus. She does say that , “As Satan saw them, they possessed great external grandeur.” HE (SATAN) is the one that had the AMBITION, NOT JESUS. And because he had ambition, he tried to find that IN Jesus, but, as ALWAYS, Ellen White and the Bible make it clear, “But Christ saw them in a different aspect…”

Ellen White says that “There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry.” Jones said, “And there at that moment there was stirred up all the ambition that ever appeared in Napoleon or Cæsar, or Alexander, or all of them put together.” Can’t you admit that Jones and Ellen White are NOT teaching the same thing? When Ellen White says, “There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry,” NOTHING MEANS NOTHING. Nowhere in Him, not in His heart or His mind or His flesh – NOTHING, NOWHERE responded.

Please don’t try to say that “Jesus didn’t have ambition in His heart, it was in His flesh.” Ambition doesn’t reside in the flesh – it resides in the heart.

1. “With the gentle touch of grace the Saviour banishes from the soul unrest and unholy AMBITION…” PK-60.
2. “Pride, AMBITION, deceit, hatred, selfishness, must be cleansed from the heart. With many these evil traits are partially subdued, but not thoroughly uprooted from the heart.” 5T-175.
3. “It was the PRIDE and AMBITION cherished in the heart of Satan that banished him from heaven. These evils are deeply rooted in our fallen nature, and if not removed they will over shadow every good and noble quality and bring forth envy and strife as their baleful fruits.” 5T-242.

Ellen White says in DA-123, “’The Prince of this world cometh,’ said Jesus, ‘and hath nothing in Me.’ John 14:30. There was in Him NOTHING THAT RESPONDED to Satan’s sophistry.” Jones says, “there at that moment there was STIRRED UP all the ambition that ever appeared in…” According to Jones there was something in Him that responded, but He kept it from coming out. Now consider this quote very carefully. “The law of God takes note of the jealousy, envy, hatred, malignity, revenge, lust and AMBITION that surge through the soul, but have not found expression in outward action, because the opportunity, not the will, has been wanting. And these SINFUL EMOTIONS will be brought into the account in the day when ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.’ (Eccl. 12:14)” 1 SM-217. This is exactly where Jones is putting Christ. Jesus did not SUBDUE this “sinful emotion”. There was none in Him. (John 14:30). On the contrary, HE WAS infinite humility: “What He taught, He lived. ‘I have given you an example,’ He said to His disciples; ‘that ye should do as I have done.’ ‘I have kept My Father’s commandments.’ John 13:15; 15:10. Thus in His life, Christ’s words had perfect illustration and support. AND MORE THAN THIS; what He taught, HE WAS. His Jones is actually teaching that Jesus had the attributes of Satan, when he says He had “ambition”. He did this before in Heaven, too: “Therefore he (Satan) misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. …Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world. {DA 21.3} History repeats itself.

All of you who believe that Jesus had “selfishness”, “pride” , “ambition” "lust" or any other sinful attribute in Him are doing the very thing Satan did in Heaven, “misrepresenting God (in the form of Jesus)” and attributing to God, Satan’s “own evil characteristics”.

I am not saying you are doing this intentionally as Satan did it, but nonetheless, the end result is the same.

That's only far from truth if that is not just how any Christian is.

You seem, in this post and your next post, to disallow Christ having a true human aspect to his experience: sinful inclination contributing to the battle of facing temptation. Unless Jesus was tempted from within, so to speak - by his assumed, sinful flesh, he is no example, which is precisely what Siste White said to those who asked her what the issue was with discussing Christ's humanity between sinful and sinless...

As for ambition or no ambition..., EGW and Jones aren't contradictory, because the delegates, first of all, at the GC Session, said Amen to Jones' presentations, and...

Sister White was speaking to Jesus' spiritual reaction by faith to Satan's virtually overpowering temptation - which none of us shall be required ever to face, as we don't have to qualify as "Saviour" !! - while Jones, perfectly correctly, was describing Jesus' natural, human reaction to the temptation. Thus we have an Example in our great High Priest, for he was taken from among his brethern - as Levitical laws prescribe, and Hebrews reiterates, and he suffered temptations precisely as we do, but he learned obedience to God through those very sufferings (Heb 4).

The "things he suffered" were his humanity's deprivation of sinful satisfaction, since he chose righteousness - by faith: therefore, and only thereby, is his total experience on earth, not forgetting his death and resurrection, the very content of our very Gospel experience - our inner experience: justification - pardon AND renewal of the mind; sanctification - exercise of that "mind of Christ" (ie. the renewed mind) under the Spirit's leading (ie. Christ's presence with us till and beyond probation closing - it closing due to the fact that he shall have finished building our characters, with our agreement...) in building our Christlike characters, the completion of which renders us no longer in need of intercession for he shall have made (yes, the sanctuary "shall" be cleansed!) us perfectly abhorrent of sinning and ready for translation; his resurrection is the glorification of sinful humanity which eradicated its sinfulness - of course, but just enunciating the procedure - and whence we receive immortality in our flesh.

The Gospel of salvation in Jesus thus hinges on his sinfully inclined humanity, for both our justification and our glorification, and everything in between. We like our Elder Brother, exist naturally - fleshly, and spiritually - dead to the sin of the flesh should we be alive to God by his indwelling Spirit: partakers of the divine nature.

Get it?

Got it?

Done. PTL!

how do you come to these conclusions? what authority is it based on?

i see Christ as fully able to cleanse me of all sin without having to be exactly like me, so i cant see that believing He was somehow "sinful" as any prerequisite to salvation, while i do see others making it very dependent on Christ having sinful tendencies, inclinations, which are, i believe, synonyms for propensities, to be able to be saved.

in other words, "Christ if you were not tempted with the same things i am tempted with then You arent qualified to save me".

i have no such limitations on our Savior. i understand the temptations He suffered in a much different, elevating light, not a demoralizing view.


we do not have legitimate hunger. we hunger for unwholesome foods and drugs. that was not the temptation Jesus fought. Jesus had legitimate hunger and denied that hunger for wholesome food, in the 40 days temptation.

we can rise no higher than our view of Jesus.

Yes, Christ was literally starving to death when the devil tempted Him to turn stones into bread to feed His starving human body, but to have done so would have been wrong, would have been sinful.

Being as hungry as He was, He was probably tempted to do it, but He didn't give in to that temptation, but instead responded to the temptation with an "It is written."

thank you, i did leave that out. but it was still a legitimate hunger as opposed to ours, would you agree? or do you see it differently?

Tammy, thank you for posting these quotes, but none of them seem to have any inkling whatsoever of what you seem to be concerned with, which are their theological positions. That is, the quotes you presented spoke to Jones' self-confidence and poor judgment. There is not a peep about any theological error.

Regarding your reasoning here:



It seems similar to what she warned against here:



Regarding what she said in 1888, I think you may have misunderstood her intent. She said E.J. Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she could, that the Lord has given him special light on that question of righteousness by faith, that she had been wanting to bring it out more clearly, but could not have brought it out as clearly as he did. But when Waggoner brought it out at Minneapolis, she recognized it.

She wasn't saying in the quote you presented that Waggoner was presenting the same thing she had been presenting, but was presenting what she had been wanting, or trying, to present. As soon as she saw the light, she recognized it, and identified it. But she wasn't saying, "You don't need this; you have my writings." She never said that!

Here's something from the 1888 session:



If we trust God, I see no reason that we should question His judgment in sending the message He did, nor the messengers He chose. Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner over a thousand times during the years of 1888 and 1896. Surely their writings would be "safe" during this time. The idea that God would send us light that was flawed, that we need to worry about, because it might be unsafe and lead us astray, seems to me to speak very poorly of God. If there were something to worry about in the message, wouldn't God have told us? Instead, God predicted the future, and advised that even if Jones and Waggoner fell away that this wouldn't mean that they didn't have a message from Him, but that this would be a "fatal delusion" that some who were not in tune with the Spirit of God would fall into.

Tammy, regarding the criticisms of Jones in his 1895 sermons, it seems to me both Jones and Ellen White's ideas involved Christ's taking our sinful nature, bearing our sins, and confronting our temptation in that condition. It appears as if you are looking for some flaw to pick in what Jones wrote, as opposed to seeing the message he presented as Ellen White did, as light from heaven, as a message from God.

Shortly after Jones' sermons at the 1895 GC session, she wrote:

Tammy, what seems to be missing in your theology is a way to life up fallen man. The SOP writes:





In order to bring us up where we are, Jesus had to come to us. He "humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe" to bring us up "from the degradation in which sin had plunged us."

The problem with the idea that Christ did not come all the way down to where we are, but just most of the way, is how do we get from where are to where Christ stopped?

This is a bit off topic in regards to the subject of this particular post, but since I quoted the Jacob's ladder statement, and since the following has bearing on our discussion as a whole, I'll mention it here.

Regarding the second quote, btw, Haskell wrote:



That is, Haskell read out loud what I quoted above, and then comment as cited, which was published in The Review and Herald. So there can be no doubt how Ellen White's words were understood by her contemporaries, nor of the fact that she herself was aware of how her words were understood by others. If she were being misunderstood on such a vital point, she would have corrected the misunderstanding. The Baker letter is proof of this.

Tammy, the context of those quotes was that Jones had decided to go work under John Kellogg and Ellen White was urgently trying to change his mind and pull him away from the man that was picking up pantheism and drifting away from the truth and taking others with him. Ellen White saw what Kellogg was doing in using charm and praise to sway others, and what was going to happen to Jones and did everything she could to keep him from falling under Kelloggs spell, to no avail..

Everybody I know has been tempted at least once or twice in their lifetime to do the very things you named - "to murder someone, to rape someone, or [any of] the many other horrendous things people do." But please bear in mind, it is not a sin to be tempted to do any of the "horrendous things" you named. No one is contaminated because they were tempted.

For example, I know a guy who, when he was a boy, the school bully beat his little brother to a pulp. He was on life support for nearly a year. He died several times and had to be revived. Although he was raised as a Christian, he was tempted to kill the bully. Visions of what he was capable of doing flashed across his mind. But he dismissed them as evil and unChristlike.

I hear you saying he was guilty of sinning. Is that what you believe?

Another example. I guy shared this with me recently. When he was a boy there was a girl in school who was very beautiful and shapely, and, unfortunately, less than virtuous. One day a terrible scene played itself out in his mind. It portrayed him forcing himself on her. He was shocked and disgusted, and rejected it as evil and unChristlike.

Again, I hear you saying he was guilty of sinning. Is that what you believe?

We have the same appetites and passions they did. They had to use reason and conscience, just like we do, not to indulge their appetites and passions in an unhealthy or unholy way. Feeling hungry is a normal part of the digestion system. There is nothing evil or sinful about it. Listen:

Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord. (14 MR 294)

You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. (3T 84)

Christ came to bring to man moral power that he may be victorious in overcoming temptations on the point of appetite, and break the chain of the slavery of habit and indulgence of perverted appetite and stand forth in moral power as a man, and the record of heaven accredits him in its books as a man in the sight of God. (TE 264)

Tom, I'm afraid your words here could be misconstrued to mean the reason it was hard for Jesus to be tempted like we are is because He found them enticing or alluring. I know you don't believe this, but someone could take it that way.

You and I agree that Jesus' fallen flesh craved and clamored for sinful expression, and that these sinful cravings and clamorings were repulsive and disgusting to Him. Not for one moment did He ever waver between iniquity and righteousness. He resolutely resisted expressing the unholy thoughts and feelings that tempted Him from within. It is in this sense that Jesus "suffered being tempted" (Heb 2:18). And so it may be with born again believers. Listen:

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

Yes, the hunger was a legitimate hungry, however, the temptation to turn stones into bread wasn't, which is why Christ rejected the temptation to do so.

I was trying to see what words you were talking about. It seemed to me it must be these:



Is this what you were speaking of?

In regards to temptation being alluring for Christ, Ellen White said that. It's not present in what I wrote, although I agree with what she said. She also said that one is tempted when one experiences a powerful influence to do a wrong action, which is the ordeal that Christ passed through. I think we do our soul's a wrong if we make Christ afar from us, as opposed to One close at hand, who experienced our sorrows and temptations, yet overcame by faith. Do you agree?

completely agreed!

could you elaborate on what you are thinking?

I'm thankful Tom said he didn't misstate, MM, because I believe that is how all people really think, down deep in their heart, who hold this belief. Many cringe to put it in so many words, as Tom has done, because when you do that, and you read it back, it really sounds bad...that is why you tried to tell him to reword it...but nonetheless, that is exactly how most people believe.

Tom says,

MM quote:

MM, this was NOT the experience of Jesus! This is NOT the experience of the victorious Christian. When Satan tempted Jesus, NOTHING in Jesus responded to the temptation....HE immediately repelled the temptation. This man "played" the temptation "out in his mind"...Jesus NEVER did that. This man lusted for this girl....that is sin.



Satan came to Jesus with all kinds of temptations...but He never was successful...the temptation came to Him, He saw it for what it was and it was immediately banished...He NEVER "played it out in his mind"....for that IS SIN.

How Tom expressed it, and like I said, I believe that is how most really believe who hold this ungodly doctrine, sounds bad, but that is what most believe.

Look at this again: Quote by Tom:

Talk to an alcoholic....when he is trying to quit....ever thought of his is about alcohol...he is under extreme temptation...and like Jones, you believe that Jesus was even stronger tempted (from the inside) "on all points" - so He was tempted on alcohol, even worse than the alcoholic???? He was tempted on mass murder more than Charles Manson???? He was tempted on genocide, more than Hitler????? Follow your reasoning out as far as it goes...this is exactly what you are saying. All of the worst sins one can imagine, were sins that Jesus found even more tempting than most of us, according to you...

This isn't what MM said. He said:




Regarding the following:



Apparently you disagree with this, but I'm not sure why. Let me try expressing things this way.

If a temptation has no strength, it is not tempting. If has some strength, it is somewhat tempting. If it has great strength, it is greatly tempting. If it has incomprehensible strength, it is incomprehensibly tempting. The strength of the temptations Christ had to endure was incomprehensible. Therefore His temptations were incomprehensibly tempting.

This all seems to follow logically from the assumption that to say that a temptation has strength is to say it is tempting. I can't think of what else it would mean to say that a temptation has strength.

OK. For real the last one before I go away....

The temptation for us and for Jesus to sin were very real and enticing. If a temptation is not enticing, it does not tempt.

And the various temptations, when you unwrap them, all boil down to the same basic thing: self-will vs. God's will. That's what tempts us and that's what tempted Jesus.

But here's a difference: Christ's temptations were at least 100 times stronger than any we will ever have to face. His temptation to follow self was stronger than ours is.

And here's another important difference: Our "self" is depraved because of transgression, while Christ's "self" was ever holy and undefiled. His temptations to fulfill His self-will were toward pure and holy things. For example, when Satan showed Him the kingdoms of the world, he showed good, wholesome scenes, not the scenes of sin that attract depraved men like us. So the way Satan attacked Him came from a different angle.

I don't think you all agree with this quote. Clearly, she says this was a temptation...and shows the response that Jesus had to this temptation. According to your definition of "temptation" - this was no temptation at all, because He didn't find it "tempting".

This clearly shows that something does not have to be "tempting" in order to be a temptation. And remember, this was one of the three great temptations...

Of this very temptation, EGW writes:



So it's clear the temptations in the wilderness, and this one in particular, were alluring to Christ.



I don't see how you can reconcile these statements with the idea that Christ's temptations were not tempting.

Also we are told that the strength of Christ's temptations are incomprehensible to man. What does "strength" of temptation mean if not that the temptation is tempting?

Thanks Arnold. A couple of thoughts.

First of all, if Christ's self was unlike ours, why did He have to deny it? Iow, if Christ's self was simply the divine self He had before coming to earth, wouldn't it have been in perfect harmony with the Father's will? In this case, there would have been nothing to deny. Yet Christ enjoined us to take up our cross, to deny our self, and follow Him.

Second, in regards to Christ's being tempted by wholesome things, as he was presenting the kingdoms of this world to Christ, just what could Satan have been showing Christ in regards to this sin-cursed earth which would have been "wholesome"?

Temptation and desire are seperate, just as being offered a 'date' by a prostitutes is a temptation for sexual sin, but if you have the mind of Christ the desire is not there as you have not bounced it around in your head to the point of creating a 'need' or desire for it. Too many people have developed a 'sweet tooth' for sin and then assume that Christ must have had also had this in his mind, but he never developed it, yet he had the weakened flesh just as we are born with.

i hate to respond because i hate to go round and round with no resolution, but the way i read it and understand it is that Christ emptied Himself of all His will in order to allow God to live through Him as an example for us.

thanks for the clarification! that helps a lot.

From Jones, in the same sermon where he said that Jesus did not have a sinful mind (emphases mine):
The example He left for us is to keep self under at all costs. When we keep self under, what do we avoid? Making a huge mess of things.

That's why the temptation was much harder for Jesus, because if He let His self run the show, everything would still have been fine, with the notable exception that He would mess up the plan of redemption.

Plus, He laid His omniscience aside. Therefore, He was relying on His Father to guide Him. His faith in God led Him to do His Father's will even if He had His own ideas.



Satan knew better than to try to tempt Jesus with Las Vegas. We naturally like evil, but Christ's nature recoiled from it.

But of course, Jesus saw through this anyway.

Again, there's the issue of the following:



Where's the possibility of yielding in this idea? Or the powerful influence to do a wrong action? Or the ordeal?

so you do not see temptation and desire as two separate things?

did Christ toy with temptation as we do?

Tom, here are the definitions of ALLURING:



In other words, 1. One can find a temptation alluring or tempting, or 2. One can make a temptation alluring or tempting.

Satan made the his temptations as alluring as possible, and of all the temptations,

BUT! That DOES NOT mean that Jesus found these temptations that Satan presented as alluring as he possible could, tempting or alluring. Clearly He did not, for she says ~



Those powerful temptations, the strongest ones Satan could bring upon Christ, found NOTHING within Christ that responded to them...they were repelled immediately...Christ saw them as they really were, not as Satan tried to portray them.

This needs to become and must become our experience - until it does, we are not safe to save. I believe with all my heart, that this is why Jesus has not come back yet, because His people are not ready....that is all He is waiting for.

Very important and critical point, Richard. Thank you!

I don't think so, Arnold...these don't sound like good, wholesome scenes~

We all could resist temptation to a strange, dark and evil thing. But Satan doesnt present that, he makes it according to what he thinks we might want, a beautiful fruit to taste for our pallete, a golden calf to dance before and have a party, a great position as the man who 'handled' Christ along with the money bag, none of it seemed evil. We might not be drawn to some sin or even change our mind and stay away from the temptation presented, but once the devil finds what we have let in our head or our tendencies, whether its curiousity, a beautiful body we want to show off, or intelligence which we want everyone to know we have, then he sets the trap. Christ didnt let these idle thoughts percolate in his mind which open you up to temptation and harden into desire, he had no evil tendencies because he never let them develop. We are not born with evil thoughts, but we let them grow as we let them creep into our minds and stay there...

I don't think temptations were alluring or enticing to Jesus in the same sense they are to unconverted sinners. His fallen flesh craved and clamored for sinful expression, but Jesus Himself was never inclined to sin. The temptations that bombarded Him from within and from without were repulsive to Him. There was nothing alluring or enticing about them. He never wavered between wanting to sin and not wanting to sin. The whole idea of sinning was disgusting to Him. Of course I'm here talking about temptations to indulge something inherently sinful, not to indulge doing something inherently right at the wrong time (i.e. heal someone).

Is this what you're saying? Or, are you saying something else?

I agree such scenes did not play themselves out in Jesus’ mind. I’m sorry you thought I said so. I also agree Jesus immediately recognized and resisted the temptations that bombarded Him. However, all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. We must be conscious of the fact we are being tempted in order to be tempted.

Temptations are not temptations if we’re unconscious of the fact. The boy in my example was disgusted by the images that passed through his mind. The idea of raping the girl was horrible to him. The images were not in the least alluring or enticing to him. This is the point of the story. Just because horrible thoughts and feelings pass through our mind it does mean we are guilty of sinning.

For example, I know a guy who, when he was a boy, the school bully beat his little brother to a pulp. He was on life support for nearly a year. He died several times and had to be revived. Although he was raised as a Christian, he was tempted to kill the bully. Visions of what he was capable of doing flashed across his mind. But he dismissed them as evil and unChristlike. In such cases people are not guilty of sinning, nor is the character corrupted or contaminated.

Do you agree?

On the mountaintop Satan offered Jesus a shortcut or alternate path that bypassed the cross. This was the same issue Jesus wrestled with in Gethsemane. The allurement, enticement consisted of doing something inherently right (i.e. redeeming sinners). The strength of such temptations were indeed incomprehensibly strong. Things that are inherently wrong were never alluring or enticing to Jesus. He resisted them without hesitation. Such temptations possessed no strength whatsoever. Thus it may be with us, yea, must be with us. In Christ it is so.

i believe this is what he was referring to...

MM, if temptations were repulsive to Christ, then He wasn't tempted. The following is clear about this:



Regarding the third temptation in the wilderness, EGW calls it the most "alluring" of the three.

Temptation does not involve doing something right, but something wrong. See the above ("influenced to do a wrong action.")

Christ had to deny Himself. He "pleased not Himself." This was difficult for Christ because He took our fallen nature and bore our sins.

"As alluring as he possibly could"? What does this mean? Why would this be necessary?



This quote makes clear that Christ:

1.Temptation is not temptation without the possibility of yielding.
2.Temptation involves being powerfully influenced to do a wrong action.
3.This was an ordeal for Christ.

The idea that Christ's temptations consisted of being offered things which were repulsive to Him doesn't fit with any of these points. First of all, what possibility was there of Christ's yielding to some temptation which was repulsive to Him? Even we don't give into temptations like that. Yet His temptations were much more difficult to meet than ours.

Second, we are told that temptation involves being powerfully influenced to do a wrong action. This doesn't fit either. Repulsion would be a powerful influence *not* to do the thing being tempted, the exact opposite of the point being made.

Third, resisting something repulsive is hardly an ordeal.

Often the SOP tells us that Christ took fallen nature in order to share our temptations. A well known example:



Please note the comment that "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." What are these results? They are the things we see in the lives of His ancestors Rahab, Solomon, and David, just to name a few.

He accepted the workings of the law of heredity to *share* in our temptations. As we see above, a temptation is not something which is repulsive, but something which influences us powerfully to do a wrong action. If it were repulsive, it would be the opposite of a temptation, and unlike our experience.



He took fallen human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. He endured "all" the temptations wherewith man is beset.

Teresa is right; that's what I was thinking about.

But how do we reconcile the two texts? Satan showed him those aspects that would appeal to Him by hiding all traces of evil, but Jesus saw through it and saw what most of us miss when we look at the world.

And isn't this why we fall into temptation? We look at it and think that good things will come of it, missing the fact that it will always lead to woe and misery. That's what Eve did when she considered the pros and cons of eating the fruit. Had she considered the death that would follow, would she have eaten it? I don't think so.

Thank you, Arnold and Teresa....for setting me straight here...I see what you were referring to now. Yes, I think that is a good point - as to how we reconcile the two statements...both are totally inspired...and are talking about the exact same incident.

Like you said, Arnold...Satan makes the temptation appear as alluring as possible, which is the description of the one you posted...and the one I posted is how Jesus sees through that alluring temptation, and sees it for what it is...

These explanations don't look to be dealing with the reality of temptation, as explained here.



Repulsive = no possibility of yielding, no powerful influence to do wrong, no ordeal.

Also this:



Christ came to share our temptations.

I don't find eating repulsive; I quite enjoy it. If I didn't eat for almost 6 weeks, I imagine I would find it even more appealing. And if I found myself with food within my reach, healthy food, I don't think it would be sin to partake. It would be alluring indeed.

However, when Jesus was in that situation, the particular circumstances made it impossible for Him to eat without also sinning.

Was there a possibility of eating? Sure. Easier for Him to turn stones into bread than for me to make a sandwich.

Did He want to eat? Sure. He was human wasn't He? Fallen or unfallen, His humanity made eating a physical necessity.

Was it a wrong action? For Him, at that time, it was. Why? Because God didn't want Him to eat at that time.

So, when faced with the choice between physically dying or being separated from His Father, what did Jesus find repulsive and decided to avoid? Being separated from His Father. But that doesn't mean that He didn't want to eat. If He didn't, it would not have been tempting. (Ordinary fallen man would naturally go for the bread, as he runs away from the Father.)

In Gethsemane, Jesus was again faced with the prospect of being separated from His Father. Was it any less repulsive to Him then? No. He even asked if there was a possibility of avoiding it. To Him, physical suffering was negligible in comparison to the prospects that lay ahead. (Ordinary fallen man would naturally avoid physical suffering, as he runs away from the Father.)

BTW, Jesus was tempted by wholesome, God-made bread. Eve was tempted by wholesome, fresh fruit. Ordinary fallen man? Snickers satisfies.

My comment was in response to those who have expressed the idea that Christ found the temptations He faced to be repulsive. So Christ was only "tempted" to do things He found to be repulsive; that was the idea expressed.

This is giving more of what was said, so there's a context for his comments.

This is a wonderful sermon, bringing out the power of grace. Jones' comments should be taken in context.

Clearly there are things that were decisions which were difficult for Christ. For example:

Tom, when Jesus was tempted to do something inherently wrong, do you imagine Him wrestling with wanting to do it? Or, do you see Him being repulsed and rejecting it immediately?

Also, when Jesus was tempted to do something inherently right at the wrong time (i.e. heal someone) or for the wrong reason (i.e. turn stone into bread to prove to Satan He is the Messiah), do you imagine Him wrestling with wanting to do it?

And finally, what was the essence of Jesus' temptation and ordeal in Gethsemane? What was He wrestling with? And, why?

i didnt realize you would feel that i had taken it out of context. but thanks for showing the contrast between Jesus and us.

when Jesus was a baby how do you understand He got the victory?

That is not a gospel truth we have to understand for our salvation, is it. We accept it like we accept the mystery of the incarnation and the mystery of his Sonship begotten in eternity past.

No-one knows, last I heard.

What? I said:



What does this have to do with your comment?

The reason I wrote this is that you took what Jones wrote as his saying that no temptation was difficult for Jesus (at least, this appeared to me to be your thought). So I pointed out that this wasn't Jones' thought at all. The point of his comments had to do with the power of grace in overcoming sin. His point wasn't contrasting Jesus to us.



I don't. We're told how Jesus was sinless during this time is a mystery unrevealed to mortals. I'm content to leave it at that and not speculate.

A question for you. Do you agree that Christ had "flesh of sin"?

I don't know what you mean by "inherently wrong." I believe that Christ was tempted in all points as we are. I believe there were temptations which were difficult to Christ. I don't believe temptations which were repulsive to Christ were temptations, as Ellen White explained. For example, how could Christ have been powerfully influenced by something repulsive to Him? How could He possibly have yielded to such a "temptation"? Also, how would this be Christ's "sharing" in our temptations?



According to Ellen White, it was an "ordeal." If Christ didn't have to struggle, how could it be characterized as an "ordeal"? Also, how could there have been any possibility that Christ would yield?



Christ was struggling with doing His own will vs. doing the will of God.

His sinful flesh craved and clamored for sinful expression, that is, it hassled Him to satisfy His appetites and passions in sinful ways, to do something "inherently wrong". This constitutes the powerful influence Ellen spoke about. Believers share in the same thing. In Christ they do not want to sin. In Christ the idea of sinning sounds repulsive to them. Nevertheless, they must, like Jesus did, labor, agonize, wrestle, and strive to resist sinning, to stay connected to the Father.


"Wanting to do it" and "resisting the temptation to do it" are two different things. Jesus didn't want to sin. He wanted to do His Father's will.


He wanted to do the will of God and He was wondering and hoping their was another way to accomplish it. He didn't want to sin or disregard God's will altogether.

i dont believe anyone here is denying the fact that Christ was strongly tempted. what my objection, and i believe the objection of certain others, is making Jesus "altogether such a one as ourselves".

we object to "Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin". we do not believe He did.

when this degenerates into a prelapse vs postlapse war, the vital issues are missed and no constructive dialogue can be had. when we get stuck on trying to prove our position, our understanding, we are not able to adequately hear/understand the possibly valid points our "opponent" may have.


Jesus was fully God-contrast/not like us-and became fully human-we are fully human. but He still didnt become just like me because i am a woman, He became a literal man.

He could not have saved us if He had become just like us.

being strongly tempted to avoid pain and suffering is a very natural, human response. being tempted to eat when hungry is a very understandable human response. being thirsty is very human. those are the points i believe the desire of ages so strongly emphasizes. so yes He found that quite desireable!



i believe arnolds point adds to this thought in that Christ was fighting selfishness vs other-centeredness. selfishness is our fallen state.

Tammy wrote:



How can one be strongly tempted by something which isn't tempting.

By the way, being able to shout without using caps was impressive. I guess that would be like shouting in real life without raising your voice(?) Or maybe while smiling would be a better analogy.

It's also been suggested that Christ found all temptations to be repulsive. The same question comes to mind. How can something one finds repulsive be a strong temptation?



This isn't postlapsarianism. Making Christ altogether such a one as ourselves is suggesting Christ had sinned, or was not divine. It's not suggesting that Christ took our sinful nature, or, synonymously, that He had sinful flesh.



No one here is defending this idea, right? So everyone here agrees regarding this.



It's certainly possible that this can happen, but it's not necessary. It's a bit frustrating for me to be making the same points repeatedly and not having them acknowledged or discussed. I believe I've been fair in listening to what other's are saying. I try not to put a filter on that prevents me from hearing any "truth" from what someone is saying just because I disagree with some idea. For example, in our discussion here, I think Arnold has had some interesting ideas, for example, in regards to Christ's being tempted to follow self instead of God (I can't remember his exact wording, but I think I've accurately represented his idea).



It seems to me there are a lot of red herring type arguments in the thread, as opposed to dealing with actual issues. I agree with your observation that this can happen because of not listening to what another is saying. In regards to this particular point, no one is suggesting that Jesus became "just like me."



Of course not. For one thing, in this case He would not have been divine, but merely human.



Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me that not all of Christ's temptations were repulsive. And also, it appears, that you agree with me that Christ's temptations were "tempting."

Regarding the idea that these were the points of the Desire of Ages, I think this is missing much of what she said. I'll give three examples:



If all that were involved here were things like hunger and avoiding pain, I don't see how this makes any sense. Why emphasize Christ's heredity? In particular, the underlined sentence makes no sense. What were the results shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors? They are things like rape, incest, murder, adultery; sins of every type. No one would read this underlined sentence to mean "hunger" or "pain avoidance." It's inconceivable that this is what Ellen White had in mind.



Again, I don't see how one could interpret this to mean she had things like hunger and pain avoidance in mind. How do these things represent human nature "degraded and defiled by sin."?



S. N. Haskell read this aloud, then commented:



He was working with Ellen White at the time to combat the Holy Flesh movement, which argued that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. This statement was published in the Review and Herald.

This shows that Ellen White was understood as teaching that Christ came in fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations, and that Ellen White knew that she was perceived in such a fashion. It's hard to comprehend how she would let this slide if it were false, especially considering that she wrote the Baker letter. If she would correct an obscure minister no one knew, it's hard to fathom how she would let the top workers of the church, those most visible, make public errors of such magnitude if they were wrong and she really didn't believe that Christ took fallen humanity with its hereditary inclinations.



I don't understand what you're saying here.

I agree with this. Also I think this is well put. It is the idea of sinner that was repulsive to Christ, but Christ had actual temptations to deal with, which were not repulsive, precisely for the reasons your brought out.



Personally I think I would stay away from saying things like Christ "wanted" to or "didn't want" to do things. This seems to me vague and confusing. One could argue that if one doesn't want to do something, one isn't tempted. One could also argue that a sanctified person won't want to do wrong, which is of course true. So personally I would stay away from this construction. I like the way you put things in the first paragraph above.

my post seems to be generally misunderstood, but not completely so ill just drop it and leave the misunderstanding be. except that i wasnt yelling. i just wanted it to stand it out. did i make it too large? yes, but i was busy and didnt think to get back and fix it.

no beneficial dialogue here. just needs to win.

your picture of Jesus is not beneficial to me since we live up to the picture we have in our mind. it is a miserable existence of constantly resisting sin. our eyes constantly on self. self, self, self.

but the picture of Jesus singing hymns as He went about His work, constantly looking to benefit His fellowman, constantly emptying Himself to let only the Father show, etc.

yes, that will work.

by beholding we become.

I agree with this sentiment. I can see how people would respond negatively to the postlapsarian idea because of a wrong emphasis. However, one can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If one looks at A. T. Jones 1895 sermons, he starts out his series on Christ's human nature by pointing out that Christ took our nature in order to reveal the Father to us. His was not a message of focusing on self, but on Christ, or God in Christ. Waggoner shared the same sentiment:

You're certainly a challenging person to converse with! You at times make generally negative comments, without allowing an opportunity to explore the subjects of your negativity. A quick hit, and goodbye. People spend a lot of time putting together posts to address the issues you raise, but at times you just brush these posts off as no import, with some dismissive comment.

Having said this I wish to make clear that I appreciate your insights and agree with much of what you say, most in fact. I just wish we could have more of a conversation.

I like that. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it someday for a sermon.

Waggoner tells us to "consider Christ continually and intelligently" because "by beholding we become changed." What is it that postlapsarians consider about Christ all the time? His fallen flesh, which is the same as ours, which has nothing to do with morality, and includes neither the mind nor character.

In short, postlapsarianism as I see it is basically this: We continually behold Christ's fallen flesh, which is like ours, so that we can become changed into what we already are.

That's why I feel it a waste of time to discuss "nature" as it relates to postlapsarian Christology; I prefer "nature" as it relates to soteriology. The former is academic wrangling because it cannot be changed before Jesus comes back, while the latter is crucial because it must change if I am to run toward Jesus when He does come back instead of away from Him.

Another possibility is that Waggoner was not so trivial as to spend so much time and energy on that which needs no change, as modern postlapsarians seem to be obsessed with.

Character is the thing that is due a change (our aim) if one is Christian.

Can we effect that change by faith witout Christ having taken our sinful flesh to do the same before us? Since SOP and the Bible is clear that Christ did take our stuff to do what we must do with our stuff, defending our aim is the issue, since 1957, etc.

This is a good question.

Did Jesus effect a change of character in Himself? Did He, as we all must, pass "from death unto life"? Did He really do everything that we must do with "our stuff"?

It looks like you're going beyond Jesus having flesh like ours, but also needing to effect a change in character like us. I think you're taking the need for Jesus to be our example a bit too far.

Why do you think this, Arnold? I've not met a soul like this. Can you quote something a postlapsarian said which gives this impression?



The foremost postlapsarians that come to my mind our Ellen White and Bonhoeffer. I don't think either of them suggest this. Other postlapsarians that come to my mind are A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, W. W. Prescott, S. N. Haskell, and E. J. Hibbard. For modern day postlapsarians R. J. Wieland, Ty Gibson and Gerald Finneman pop out. I don't know of anything in the thousands of pages I've read from these authors which would says what you are suggesting. Can you quote something?



Again, I've ready hundreds of pages of the authors I've mentioned above, and not seen this obsession. Even among postlapsarians which have a perspective to me which seems a wrong emphasis (i.e. emphasizing above all, or even only, Christ as example, as opposed to Christ as a revelation of the Father, or Christ as our compassionate High Priest who can comfort us with the comfort by which He was comforted) I don't see this obsession.

Can you quote something?

No, otherwise we'd both be going too far with this...

Jesus built a righteous character from scatch without sinning: but he had to to be Saviour of the world - very unlike us sinners, who catch up later in life. He had differences, but not fundmentally! Had he had fundamental differences, then we wouldn't have a Saviour!! He learned obedience without sinning; we learn obedience alongside sinning, but he can and wants to lead us from our primary common factor with him - sinful flesh - to our other common factor with him - his righeous character.

That's what friendship is built on with our Elder Brother and High Priest, by whom we have bold access to our Father, whom we share with Jesus whose literal Father God is.

Thanks Teresa...well said...

That Christ desired and lusted to sin is not a postlapsarian position. That some postlapsarian somewhere said such a thing, or some other error, does not imply the stated error is a postlapsarian position.

To illustrate this point, Tammy does not believe Christ's temptations were tempting. As this is not a fundamental position of prelapsarians, it would not be proper for me to ascribe to prelapsarians this idea. I could rightly assert that *a* prelapsarian thought this, but not rightly express this as a typical idea of prelapsarians, if all I could produce were one quote by one person expressing this idea. It would likewise be incorrect of my to infer that her idea is due to her being prelapsarian.

From post #107295 - 01/07/09 10:49 PM

From post #105007 - 11/21/08 10:35 PM

From Paulson

Please quote specifically what you had in mind, that is, what phrases or sentences. I didn't seen anything that would indicate that what postlapsarians consider about Christ all the time is His fallen nature.

I didn't follow your point in the rest of the post. What was it please?

youre asking the wrong person, my brother. 3 guesses as to where/whom i got it from.

amen and amen and amen!! by dwelling on Christs difference from me gives me a higher goal to live up to.

what that says to me, is that Christ really wanted to sin, that he found whoring around, partying, the things of this world quite attractive and really wanted them but denied Himself this day in and day out. that seems to be quite a miserable existence.

i see Jesus as finding such things repulsive and i want to reach that state where i also find sin, all sin, utterly repulsive.

not only that He found self-sacrifice highly desirable and satisfying. i want to reach that state, also.

Of course, but Christ's difference is His character, not His flesh.

The idea that postlapsarian is to continually behold Christ's fallen flesh is ludicrous. This is simply blatant misrepresentation of a point of view one disagrees with. It's easier to place a false stigma upon someone, or a group of someones, than to deal with the real issues involved. This reminds me of politics.

This has been a weird thread. There's not a soul on this forum who believes that Christ desired and lusted to sin, yet here we are on page 16.

That is EXACTLY what is being taught...instead of dwelling on the victorious Christian life that He really had and that He calls us to, some seem to make it their mission to totally warp His moral character. Jesus said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."

I believe that this statement is being fulfilled right here on this forum:


Satan is working through some, to misrepresent the character of God, through misrepresenting the character of Jesus...as they are one in the same.

Just think about it...Where, in all the world, would Satan want to work the hardest to misrepresent the character of God? Would it not be right here, right within Seventh Day Adventists? Of course it would! After all, SDA's have the greatest light in all the world, and they have the highest calling in all the world, that being the call to be the last people on this earth to give to the world the correct representation of the Father's character...because we are clearly told ~



So, as long as Satan can deceive people as to what the real character of Christ is....they will not be able to reproduce His character perfectly....and Satan is successfully able to put off the 2nd Coming of Christ.

I believe this is none other than The Omega.

Jesus did find those things repulsive and "abhorant"...and so should we..

That is exactly what is being portrayed here on the forum, that sin was attractive to Jesus....the total opposite of the truth! The truth is, Jesus was repulsed and abhorred by sin, not attracted to and drawn to sin as is being taught here by some....

When we separate Jesus from the unholy cravings and clamorings of His sinful flesh we see a Lord and Savior who hated sin with a holy hatred. We do not see Jesus wavering between wanting to sin and not wanting to sin; instead, we see Him being disgusted and repulsed by the idea of satisfying His appetites and passions in sinful ways. This is the mind of Christ, this is what it means to be Christlike. Yea more, to be like Jesus means growing in grace and maturing daily in the fruits of the Spirit, to do always those things that are pleasing to our heavenly Father.

It's not even close to what's being taught, let alone "exactly" what is being taught. If you wish to assert this is "exactly" what is being taught, then please produce some quote which says "exactly" this, namely



This type of gross misrepresentation is reprehensible.



This is an interesting an enlightening comment. It explains some things about your posts. I was curious about that.

It appears you are suggesting that postlapsarianism is the Omega. Specifically, the ideas that A. T. Jones taught in his 1895 sermons. So, on the one hand, we have A. T. Jones teaching that salvation is found in the very fact that Christ took sinful flesh and overcame in this flesh, while you believe this teaching is the Omega.

Regarding the comments about misrepresentation of God's character and not knowing the true Christ, this is ironic, since this is what R. J. Wieland has been arguing for over 50 years (although he argues along the line of what A. T. Jones taught, not opposing him). During this whole time the ideas of postlapsarians have been distorted, although this problem didn't start then. For example, S. N. Haskel had this problem over 100 years ago:



The same thing is happening today. Rather than deal with the issues at hand, sentences or phrases are taken out of context, and teachings are misrepresented. Over and over in this thread I have presented evidence that Ellen White was both perceived to be postlapsarian and was postlapsarian herself, yet this evidence hasn't even been discussed. Just to mention one thing, Ellen White wrote the following:



This is in reference to a sermon that W. W. Prescott gave on Christ's taking our sinful flesh. That was the theme of the sermon. About three dozen times Prescott repeated this thought. Here's one example:



Here's some more from this sermon:



How could Ellen White endorse this sermon if she were not postlapsarian?

tom, the materials i have come across dwell on this. i have seen it for decades. i never had hope from it. the hope i have gotten has been from those who dwell on Christs differences to me, His love and care.....

where in paulsons paper, which i just reread, is there any hope? it is dry, loveless, Christless. there is nothing in that paper similar to the desire of ages.

you have stated that you did not believe that Christ lusted and desired to sin and i believe you. but if you look back over the posts what do you see? how about this one?



how is this similar to ellen white, ty gibson, etc? ty, by the way is one who gave me a much better picture to look and emulate than the miserable existence portrayed in the quote.

take an objective look at the defenses presented and show me where the love and self-sacrifice of Jesus has been presented in defending the post-lapse position.

i probably wouldnt have a problem with that position if it didnt concentrate on the negative...it is so worried about protecting its position that Jesus is just a by-product, not the all and end-all He should be.

I understand this. I know many in the same situation as you. But the problem is not with the idea that Christ took our fallen nature, but with a theology which is grounded primarily on the idea of Christ as Example as opposed to Christ as the revelation of God. From the SOP:



There is a great deal of hope in Christ as the revelation of God. A. T. Jones' 1895 sermons started with the idea that Christ took our nature for the purpose of revealing God. That's a strong, hopeful foundation to base an idea on.

Because some (notable so-called "historic Adventists") have formed a theology based on primarily emphasizing perfection of character and Christ as example (both ideas I believe in, but not as primary emphasis, but much further down the line) does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater.



I liked this part of the post:



I like the "in Christ" ideas shared here.

What I find missing from the post is the idea that God's love, revealed through Christ, draws us to Himself, and that if we do not resist that love, we will be led to repentance.



You mentioned Ty Gibson. He's postlapsarian. George Fifield was a postlapsarian. He preached a sermon which I find just unbelievably beautiful. I'll post it shortly for you, in case you haven't seen it. I find many beautiful ideas presented by Jones and Waggoner.

The problem isn't with the postlapsarian idea, which is simply that Christ took fallen humanity, an idea EGW expresses several hundred times, but with a wrong emphasis, and a wrong understanding of the problem. The problem of sin is not one simply, or primarily, one of behavior, but one of perception. We have perceived God to be other than He is, in accordance with the lies of the enemy. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," a truth which, when I really began to start to grasp it, transformed my whole way of looking at things. Of course I had believed the words (what Christian doesn't?) but the reality of the thought entered my consciously profoundly as I realized that I had not really believed it, having in my mind two concepts of God, one of the Father, and another one of Jesus Christ. I still do, but at least now I'm aware of this contradiction, and am striving to view the Father as Jesus Christ revealed Him to be; that is, I want to perceive the Father in my heart of hearts to be as kind, gentle, humble, patient, and forgiving as Christ.

I don't know how well I've communicated my thought here.

Sermon following.

Nice questions and points.

(Fifield sermon follows, from the 1897 General Conference session.)

You will find the basis of our study this evening in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and the third verse: "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." In connection with this I will read several other verses of the same chapter, and also a translation, which will enable us to obtain the thought more clearly:

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." The other translation reads: "Surely he bore our griefs, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through by our sins; he was crushed by our misdeeds. The chastisement of our peace lay upon him, and in his wounds there became healing for us.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Another translation: "The Lord let all our misdeeds come upon him." Verse eight: "He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people was he stricken." The other translation: "From distress and judgment was he taken; and in his generation who thought that he should be plucked out of the land of the living for the misdeeds of my people, punishment to them."

Tenth verse: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Translation: "It pleased the Lord to let him be crushed; he hath made him sick; when his soul hath given a trespass offering, he shall see seed and live long." The thought is clearly enough expressed in the Authorized Version, but since we are liable sometimes to receive the wrong thought, the translation helps us to see it more clearly.

The third verse states and vividly contrasts the true and the false idea of Christ's mission, and of his work, and of the atonement. One is what was, and the other is what we thought was; one is truth, the other is falsehood; one is Christianity, the other is paganism. We would do well to study every thought in that text. "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; he was pierced through by our misdeeds, and God permitted it because in his stripes there was healing for us. But we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Whose griefs? Whose sorrows? - Ours.

The grief and the sorrow that crushed the heart of Christ, and took him from among the living, so that he died of a broken heart, was no strange, new grief or sorrow. It was not something unlike what we have to bear; it was not God arbitrarily putting upon him our sins, and thus punishing our sins in him to deliver us. He took no position arbitrarily that we do not have to suffer. It was our griefs and our sorrows that pierced him through.

He took our sinful natures, and our sinful flesh, at the point of weakness to which we had brought it, submitting himself to all the conditions of the race, and placing himself where we are to fight the conflict that we have to fight, the fight of faith. And he did this by the same power to which we have access. By the Spirit of God he cast out devils; through the eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot; and the Spirit of God rested upon him, and made him of quick understanding in the things of God. It was our sins that he took; our temptations.

It is my experience that in nine cases out of ten, when men consider those temptations in the fourth chapter of Matthew, which are typical of all his temptations, they fail to recognize their likeness to our own. They make him tempted in all points like as we are not, rather than like as we are.

Picture to yourselves the wonderful experience that Christ had at his baptism, when he entered upon his mission, when the Spirit of God descended upon him with power, and the voice was heard, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It would seem that after such an experience as that, it would surely be all smooth sailing. But out there in the wilderness, when the Saviour was in apparent weakness and hunger, the devil pressed him, saying, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."

Have we not had this experience? How many of us can look back to the time when we were baptized, when we heard God saying to us, This is my beloved son, this is my beloved daughter, in whom I am well pleased; and we thought we would have smooth sailing, but soon found ourselves out in some wilderness of temptation, conscious of our weakness, and the devil came along and said, You are a pretty servant of God.

Again the devil took him up into a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." The circumstances were such as to make it plain that the design of the devil was to lead him to bow down and support a god of force, instead of making him the king of the world. He would have him be untrue to his mission. And so he would have us, by some false method, to think that we may make a great many more dollars, and to see how much of the world we can get. When he failed with Christ on these two points, he pressed him farther to get him to presume upon the mercy of God. Just so he would tempt us to presume upon the mercy of God.

He took our sorrows, our griefs, all the conflicts of our lives upon him, and was tempted in all points as we are. He took the injustices of our lives upon him too. It is a fact that you and I have to suffer for many things for which we are not at fault. All my suffering is not the result of my sin. Some of it is; but just as long as sin exists, injustice exists.

As long as men sin, men will be sinned against. Just so you and I will have to suffer for the sins of others; and so God, to show that he knew and realized all that, let him that was perfectly innocent, take the injustice and sin of us all. O brethren and sisters, he did not bear some other grief or some other sorrow, but he bore our griefs and our sorrows. He was pierced through by them, and the Lord permitted it, because there was healing in it for us; not that he might appease God, or reconcile him unto us.

Every passage of Scripture that refers to the reconciliation or atonement, or to the propitiation, always represents God as the one who makes this atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation, in Christ; we are always the ones atoned for, the ones to be reconciled. For us it was done, in order that, as Peter says, he might bring us to God.

The only way to do this is by destroying sin in us. He took our sins upon him in order that he might bring us to God. It was that he might break down the high middle wall of partition between human hearts and God, between Jew and Gentile, between God and man; that he might make us one with him, and one with one another, thus making the at-one-ment, or the atonement.

In Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afar off were made nigh by the blood of Christ, so that we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." This is as near to the Lord as we can get. This is the at-one-ment; this is why he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that he might do that for us by breaking down all those things which separate hearts from hearts, both human and divine.

Notwithstanding this, we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That was what we thought about it. We said, God is doing all this; God is killing him, punishing him, to satisfy his wrath, in order to let us off. That is the pagan conception of sacrifice. The Christian idea of sacrifice is this. Let us note the contrast. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That is the Christian idea. Yes, sir. Indifference keeps, hatred keeps, selfishness keeps, or gives, if at all, but grudgingly, counting the cost, and figuring on some larger return at some future time. But love, and love only, sacrifices, gives freely, gives itself, gives without counting the cost; gives because it is love. That is sacrifice, whether it is the sacrifice of bulls and goats, or of him who is the Lamb of God. It is the sacrifice that is revealed throughout the entire Bible. But the pagan idea of sacrifice is just the opposite. It is that some god is always offended, always angry, and his wrath must be propitiated in some way.

If it is an ordinary case, the blood of bulls and goats will suffice; but if it is an extraordinary case, the blood of some innocent virgin or child must flow; and when the god smells the blood, his wrath is appeased. We talk of pagan immortality, pagan Sunday, pagan idolatry, etc.; but it seems to me that the lowest thought is that men have brought this pagan idea of sacrifice right into the Bible, and applied it to the sacrifice of the cross. So the Methodist Discipline uses these words: "Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us;" that is, to propitiate God so that we could be forgiven - paganism straight out.

Why, brethren and sisters, it is the application of the pagan conception of sacrifice to the sacrifice upon the cross, so that that wonderful manifestation of divine love, which God intended should cause all men, all beings in the universe, to wonder and adore, has been turned around and made a manifestation of wrath to be propitiated in order to save man. I am glad that we are losing sight of this manner of viewing the subject, where we do not say that Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us. Brethren, there is sometimes such a thing as to give up the expression of a thing, and think we have thus gotten rid of it, when a good deal of it still lingers and clouds our consciousness of the love of God, and the beauty of his truth, so that we cannot present a clear gospel to hungry souls that are waiting to know about God.

I pray that God will let the sunlight of his truth shine into my heart, and into all of our hearts. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows that he might bring us to him; but we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That is what we thought; that is what we esteemed; not what was, but what we thought was. Now, every text in the Bible that speaks of reconciliation, makes God the one who makes the reconciliation, - God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, he makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. So I want to begin right here, and study God a little, and study him as the All Truth. He is the All Truth. He is love. "God is love." Let us analyze that just a little, and see what it means.

Does it mean that God is love, and part something else? - No. The Bible says that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. God is truth. Christ says, "I am the truth"; and again, "I and my Father are one;" so God is truth. He is the All Truth of the universe made living and personal, and touched with tender, throbbing love. That is God, and that is Christ too. Yes, he is the light, and in him is no darkness at all. He is all love and no hatred. Very well.

SOME one says, I know, I know; God is love, but he is love and justice. Now the minute a man says that, and means what he says, there is nothing more unjust in this universe than his idea of justice. Let us think of that for a moment. Is there justice outside of love. Suppose I love A and B. But I love A more than B. Is it my lack of love to B that prompts my love for A? - No, it is not. Now is there such a thing as loving a man with an impartial love. Can I be unjust to anybody? God is just, because he is love.

We talk about the mercy of God. What is mercy? - Disposition to treat an offender better than he deserves. We talk about his grace. Grace is unmerited favor. That is the way God does. Shows unmerited favor. All these are moral attributes of love.
How does righteousness come? Righteousness, which is the fulfilling of the law, is simply acting out the acts of love. How am I going to act out the acts of love? Try real hard to love somebody? It does not come that way. Did you ever try it? No, sir; you cannot make it that way. But if somebody acts loveable, you love him. And so the reason God can love everything, and thus act out the acts of love, is because God is love.

He has manifested himself to beget his love in us, and that love flows out in righteousness. Then the power of God is the power of love. If I had time I would carry that beyond moral power; it is even the power that upholds the universe. It is all.

And now a moment on the omniscience of God. I want to show you that if God should cease to be all-loving, he would cease to be all-knowing. Can hatred, envy, and jealousy know and comprehend love? The infinite Love was once in this world, in human form; and what did they do to him? - They crucified him. What did they crucify him for? - Because they knew him not. Hatred, envy, and jealousy can look infinite Love in the face, and not know it. Only love can comprehend love. Love can also see hatred, envy, and jealousy in their true light, because love seeth, knoweth, and comprehendeth all things. And that is why God can be omniscient, because he is love. It is one of the attributes of love. But some one says that God is love and, and -. God is love, and he is not anything but love. All the attributes of God are the attributes of love.

And then there is the wrath of God that you read about all through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. I want to turn and read a text on this point. We can only understand these things that are brought to view in the Bible, when we see them in the light and the grace of the revelation of God.

The scripture I will read is found in 2Cor.3:12-16: "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." God had many things to show to them that they could not bear; and as they could not see the true glory as it was, he had to vail it, so they could take it. "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." And, brethren, if we want to understand what God has said all through this Book, we want to turn to him, and we will understand all.

Was there ever a being in this world that hated sin as Christ hates it? - No. Was there ever a being who loved the sinner as Christ loved him? - No. Suppose I hate a man, and somebody is trying to do that man an injury, and I see it, and do not try to prevent it. Do I care whether that man is injured or not? - No; I am rather glad of it. But suppose I love that man, and here is a man that is trying to thrust a dagger into him and kill him. Now the measure of my hatred for that deed is the measure of my love for that man. I am liable to hate the man that is doing the deed, too. But I hate the deed, anyway. Now, brethren, the measure of God's hatred for sin, is the measure of his love for the sinner.

Sin has been lurking with murderous intent to take the life of every soul. God's wrath is kindled against the sin. Is that wrath going to be appeased in any way? O if it were, it would be a bad thing for us. That wrath of God against sin is to burn on until it consumes every bit of sin in this universe. Just as long as God loves the sinner, he will hate the sin, and his wrath against the sin will burn; and, thank God! that wrath against sin is going to burn, unchanged, until the universe is clean.

But look: the plan of redemption is God's effort to separate the sin from the sinner, so that he can destroy the sin, and save the sinner alive forevermore. And only when the sinner inseparably connects himself with sin, does he have to take the wrath of God. And does the Lord take delight in that? - No. When you and I have wrath, we have wrath against the man. But how about God? "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked," but rather that he turn and repent. Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die. The wrath of God is not against the wicked, even in their extermination; but because the wicked have inseparably connected themselves with sin, they have to break it; and the Lord says he does not take any pleasure in that.

You remember that when Christ pronounced the doom of Jerusalem, he was not angry with them, but said, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" O if thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thy eyes. And that is the way God feels, even when he pronounces the doom of the sinner; not a bit different from what he feels the rest of the time - infinite love and only love, from eternity to eternity.

Every one of the attributes of God are the attributes of love. And so we want to stop saying, God is love and something else. He is love, and love contains everything that he is.

Now this God of love, whose wrath burns only against the sin, and not against the sinner - this God of love gave a law for mankind. I have but a moment to spend on that. That law was not a dead law; it was not an arbitrary law. It was not a law saying, You do so, and I will let you live; You do so, and I will kill you. But God in infinite wisdom foreknew every principle of life and light and joy; and in infinite wisdom he foretold what he foreknew. This way, my child, is life and joy. Don't you go that way, my child; that way is death. Every bit of that law is simply the life of God, which is the love of God. It had the creative power of God in it. It was not something outside of man that man must do in order to live, but it was something that God wanted to put in him and leave in him; so many divine promises, if you please. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." When we have him, we do not want any other. That is a promise. Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not kill. These are loving, divine, creative promises, which God intended to put in us, to carry us to the utmost heights of joy and peace, and keep us in that path forevermore.

Now man transgressed that law, and thus cut himself off from the life of God, and hopelessly committed himself to the downward tendency to evil and death. The very first act of sin put him into the Niagara current of evil, which rushed down toward the cataract; and as he went on, he did not have the desire to get out.

His thoughts were downward; and a man in that position is just as much dead as if he went right over the falls - he is gone. And that is where sin put man; and sin is cumulative in its action upon the race. We saw that all righteousness is love acting out the acts of love; so love is the basis, the source, of all righteousness. But just as love is the source of all righteousness, so hatred is the source of all iniquity.

Suppose I tell my boy not to do a certain thing, and he disobeys my command, and no harm comes to him. That proves that my law is an arbitrary one. But suppose he disobeys my command, and does get hurt; that proves that my law was not arbitrary at all.

From sin came misery; from misery came misunderstanding of God; from misunderstanding of God, more hatred of God, and still more sin, and still more misery and more misunderstanding. And so it went on and on, the environment and heredity increasing toward evil, and the whole world going hopelessly on, spinning down into the abyss of sin, hated and hating one another. And so it has been thought that God's sense of justice and his sense of wrath should be appeased, so that we could have justice; the thing that was needed was that God should so manifest himself, his love, as to win us to love, that we might act out the acts of love. That is the thing that was needed, not that we should so appease his wrath in some way that we dare come to him, but that he should manifest his love so that we would come to him.

Suppose here is a man that does a wrong thing to me; he hates me, and he lies about me, and he injures me, and misrepresents me. What shall I do? Shall I say, When you satisfy my sense of justice, and make that thing right, so that I think the thing is all right, then I will pardon you? I am not godlike when I do that. If I am godlike, what will I do? What does the Bible say? - "Ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." When that man wrongs me that way, if I am spiritual, if I am like God, who is a spirit and the father of spirits, how will I feel about it? - I will feel that the mere fact of his injuring me is such a small thing, and the fact that he has injured himself and will go down to death is such a big thing, that the first will sink out of sight; and I will go to that man, in love, not seeking to set him right toward me for my sake, but I will seek to restore him for his own sake.

That is what I will do if I am a Christian; and yet people teach that when we sin against God, and misrepresent God, he sits back and says, When I get my full satisfaction, I will grow propitious to you. O, instead of that, God gave his Son, in love, to bring us to repentance, so that he could pardon us. And just simply to restore us, and propitiate us who had become fallen in sin, and misunderstood him, and bring us back to him, and to reconcile us to him, he gave his own life, in his Son, - just that he might do that thing for us. That is the kind of God he is.

O, but you say, Christ paid the debt, and set us free. That is true, and every one of those texts in the Bible is true. When God tells us how he forgives sin, what does he say? Well, a certain man owed another man five hundred pence, and when he had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave him. That is the way God forgives sin. Christ is the price of our pardon; that is true. But let me state it: Jesus Christ is not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but he is the price which the Father paid to bring us to a repentant attitude of mind, so that he could pardon us freely. O, that is God, brethren. That is the Father that I love so much. I have not words to tell you how I love him. That is how God forgives sin - passes by the iniquity of his people. Christ was the free gift of God, to bring us to the place where he could pardon us freely.

But some one said to me the other day, Did not Christ have to die to make the Word of God sure? because God said, If ye sin, ye shall die. In the first place, what did God mean when he said, If you sin, you will die? Did that include spiritual, physical, and eternal death? Did Christ die the spiritual or the eternal death? - No. Then is not that whole thing a fraud? And every time the Bible speaks of the debt, it is God that paid the debt in Christ, to propitiate us, to reconcile us. But still, you say, it had to be done before God could pardon. Yes, that is true; and I want to show you why; and then to-morrow night we will continue the subject by studying the sacrifice of Christ, and seeing that it is a larger thing than you have probably thought it was.

Any pardon and any forgiveness that would not take away the effect of sin, but that would lead us more and more into sin, and into the misery that comes from sin, would be worth nothing. If the law of God was an arbitrary thing, that did not have any penalty attached to it, the Lord could say, I will pardon you. But when you transgress that law, it is death; and when you keep the law, it is life and joy and peace.

Now read the seventh verse of the first chapter of Ephesians: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence." If God had not been wise, he might have pardoned our sins in an imprudent way.

Now, brethren, every father in this world knows what it is to want to let his children do things which they would enjoy doing, and he has to restrain that which would bring present pleasure, restrain that love, because of the evil effects it would have.
Was sin ever less repentant than at the foot of the cross? There you have the thing. There was God revealing himself in Christ on the cross, and there was sin unrepentant, hatred and mocking at the foot of the cross. How did God feel toward those unrepentant sinners? - "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

That is how Christ felt, and that is how God felt. He did not have any grudge against them. He would like to forgive everybody. But why could he not do it? - It would annul his law, if it was an arbitrary law; but if it were not, it would lead men to go into sin, and sin and death would result. It would be God simply taking the place of the imprudent father and spoiling his child. And therefore, because he could not do that, he set forth Christ to be, not the propitiation of God's wrath, but the propitiation of our sins, that God might be just, and still the justifier of them who believe in Jesus; because he would take the sins away from them if they believed in him, and then he could set them free, and be just in doing it, for he would not lead anybody else into sin in doing it.

O, I am so glad that we have a God whose very nature and disposition is to pardon sin; that we have a Father who is not holding any grudge against us, but instead of that, is giving his own life, in his Son, that he may so manifest his love as to bring us back to him, and so give us the life power as to live his life. It was needed that his life should be revealed, and his divine life imparted, that we might live that life on earth; and that is what he did in Christ.

O, I am so glad we have such a God as that, who gives his own life to win us back to him! The love of God is the one unchanging thing in a universe of change. Just as the waters of a flood might run high above the mountain tops, but they could not obscure the sun in the heavens; so the waves of sin might dash high above every human affection, but they cannot change the heart of God. O brethren, we have a God that loves sinners, and that forgives sin, and that gives his own life, in his Son, to bring us to repentance, so that he can forgive us. That is the kind of God we have. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing our iniquities unto us, and giving unto us the ministry of reconciliation.

How could God love a sinner? "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." That word "world" is cosmos; it means order, harmony, beauty, arrangement. You see the world was out of harmony, out of order; but God saw underneath the world of evil, the cosmos that was, the order that was to be, and he loved the cosmos that was, and gave his life to bring out the harmony.

The Spirit of God brooding over the chaos - that love of not merely what is, but what is to be, that love of the possible - O brethren, he broods over the chaos of your life and mine. It is not simply the chaos in the great big world; but he brings out the possible in us, and restores us to his image. That is the kind of God we have.

And he has committed to us that same thing, too, so that when we become like him, we can love all men, coarse though they be on the outside. And when we have the divine life of God, which sees beneath the surface, we will see loveliness in every character, that we long to live out, and long, as God does, to bring out.
With the story which I shall now relate we will close the subject for this evening. It is the story of the wonderful legend of the Holy Grail, wrought out into verse by James Russell Lowell. It has had a wonderful lesson in it for me. Sometimes we try to love God off into space, hoping it will hit him somehow; but I think God wants us to love every man all around us; and God wants us to have such keen eyes that we will see the Christ in every man, and love him.

You know the story runs that Launfal started to find the Holy Grail, and one June morning he rode, grandly caparisoned, in search of the Holy Grail, to enter upon his life mission. And as he rode along down there, a beggar was sitting there, asking alms; and he averted his face as he went by, and flung a coin to him. And he passed on, and traveled in many lands, and spent years in his search. But he came back to the old home, unable to find the object of his search; and riding up that same avenue toward that mansion, a beggar was sitting there as before. Launfal looked at him, and he reasoned something like this: His life is a failure; but has not mine been, too? Here I have been striving and struggling, and failed; and here is a failure, too. He somehow felt akin to that poor old beggar now. And as he put his hand in his pocket and passed out a coin, his heart went out to him with the coin; and instantly, as the legend goes, that beggar was transformed into the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for whom he had been looking.

O brethren, he is near us; he is all around us. He gave his life to bring us back to him, and he has committed unto us that same business, too, that same reconciliation. And O may he enable us to see him in human forms all around us, so that we can feel just as he does, giving our lives to bring out the image of Christ in the most defaced form there is around us.

I want to close by saying to every one, that we have a God that forgives iniquity. The only people that will be destroyed at last will be those that have their weapons in their hands. He will forgive you if you will lay down your arms. May God reveal his love to us more and more, and in us more and more, is my prayer.

What was the title of Fifield's sermon?

I just know it as "Sermon #1" from the 1897 General Conference Bulletin. You can find it on line from the General Conference archives. I took that and cleaned it up a bit, by which I mean when you copy and past from the archives, sometimes they're are typos. Also they have extremely long paragraphs, which makes it difficult to read, especially online, so I added many paragraph breaks.

I don't even know where to begin. I have no clue.

I don't even know where to begin. I have no clue. [/quote]

egw, where else?

i have done that. it can be a lot of work!

I hope you like it. It's one of my favorite sermons. It amazes me.

Why is the humanity of Christ discussed so heatedly for so many years, Teresa? In order to become like the man, Jesus, where he differs with us, he must have become like us where we differ with him, the Son of God. Quid pro quo...: that he took sinful flesh also with its sinfulness, but with the "mind of Christ" as well, is the simple truth we believe, preach and share...but

Because the majority of Adventists reject this truth, published profusely by our church till 1949, or are confused on the issue, THEY have diverted attention from our high calling of perfect Christlikeness.

I'm sorry you were and are turned off by a highlighting of disparaged truth: without that truth, being changed into his likeness from glory to glory is no longer a hope we have in the gospel.

I would prefer to mention nothing of the divisive history started in modern times by Edward Heppenstall and elongated by Desmond Ford...perhaps the best cause of action is simply to state the truth and have done with it for each audience.

I think stating the history is helpful. Sometimes different statements, whether in Scripture or the SOP (or elsewhere) can be interpreted in different ways, but the historical setting clarifies the situation.

Sure, once one gets to the matter of the history...

The best approach is surely to present the Biblical truth as is, and wait for responses, at which time the history of debate - a periferal issue to the Gospel truth - can be dealt with. Just like the 3 angels' message is actually the first angel's message, and the rest of that saga - Biblical drama - is repercussions of the first message.

Of course everyone out there - in our midst - knows nothing, something or everything, so the information divulged is tailored to the audience, once the Gospel truth is known. Good strategy, not so?

As a postlapsarian, what is it about Jesus that you think is "post-lapse" that you would categorize yourself as postlapsarian? Could there be anything about Jesus that is like Adam before the Fall, that is more important and requires more attention and, perhaps, more worthy of emulation such that it overshadows His likeness to Adam after the Fall?

Now, answer this question, considering it at face value, without any implied context or qualifications: Was Christ's humanity like Adam's before the Fall, after the Fall, or something else?

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. Exactly what change is it that we must effect that Jesus came "to do the same before us"?

As far as I'm know, the change of character that I must undergo is one from likeness with Satan to likeness with God. It is a very radical change; so radical that it can be called dying and being born again. It is not a mere modification, but a transformation. Is this what Jesus did "before us"?


Indeed, very unlike us. On that we are agreed.


This is a very interesting and important point. I'm glad you brought it up.

Is there a fundamental difference between one who has sinned and one who has never sinned? I guess your answer is, No. Right?

I'm trying to get a handle on what is being disagreed with. In reading the above, it appears to me that EGW is asserting that Christ accepted our heredity, in order to share in our temptations. I understand this to mean the same thing as saying that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be tempted in all points as we are. Is this agreed?

Secondly, I find the following sentence very significant:



It seems evident that these results which are shown in the history of Christ's earthly ancestors are not involving things like hunger or weariness, but things like murder, adultery, and so forth. Is this agreed?

A third question is in regards to the W. W. Prescott sermon entitled "The Word Became Flesh," which EGW endorsed as truth "separated from error by the Holy Spirit," along with other strong statements. Given that Ellen White endorsed this sermon, whose subject matter was that Christ took the sinful flesh of fallen man, is it agreed that Ellen White was in agreement with the focal point of the sermon which she endorsed?

If you answer the questions I asked, you will get a very good handle. If you have difficulty answering them, that should give you a very good idea where the disagreement is.

What is your answer? Can we effect a change of character - from Satan to Christlike - without Jesus doing "the same before us"?

I'm sorry, but I missed your questions to me. I would have answered them first, before asking mine to you, had I noticed them. I'm addressing your questions here, and I hope you'll address mine as well.



His flesh.



This seems to be scratching where it doesn't itch. This would be like say one were having a discussion about whether the Sabbath should be kept on Saturday or Sunday, and someone asked, "Could there by anything about the law that is more important, and requires more attention and, perhaps, more worthy of emulation such that it overshadows whether the Sabbath should be kept on Saturday or Sunday?"



I've commented frequently that I prefer "flesh" to "nature" in these discussions because it is clearer what is being communicated. "Nature" can mean many different things, depending upon the context. This is at least as true, if not more so, for the term "humanity." "Humanity" can either being dealing with character, or with the flesh. The SOP has many examples of both usages. So I don't see how it would be possible to answer your question. If you're dealing with a word that has multiple meanings, and the context is necessary to determine the meaning intended, how is it possible to consider it "at face value, without any implied context"?

This is a bit confusing. You're quoting Colin asking a question, and my comment that his was a good question, and then ask "What is your answer?" which would imply you want the answer to the question Colin asked. But then you ask another question after having already asking for an answer. My answer to Colin's question is no, we cannot. A. T. Jones detailed why not in detail in his book, "The Consecrated Way to Perfection."

In answer to your question, I would say Christ had not effected a mechanism for making such a transformation possible, we wouldn't be able to transform our characters. To make such a mechanism possible, among other things, it was necessary that Christ take our sinful flesh and overcome sin in that flesh.

Something else to note is that not only did Christ take our sinful flesh, He also took our sins. So while He Himself did not sin, He who knew no sin became sin for us, meaning that it was possible for Him to experience things we experience although He Himself never chose to sin.

Tempted in all points as we are. Agreed.


Why is it evident that she's talking about murder and adultery? Because that's what Christ's ancestors did? In what way did Jesus take part in such things?

It is just as valid to say that Christ's ancestors desired and lusted to sin. What can we conclude from that?

Not agreed.


Jesus took the flesh of fallen man. Defining it as separate/independent of the mind of fallen man, I agree. But I don't know who doesn't.

My disagreement with postlapsarianism has never been about the body, but about the character. I could never say that the character transformation I need was done by Jesus before me so I can do it, too. I could never imply that Jesus suffered the same spiritual maladies that His earthly ancestors did; physical, Yes, but not spiritual.

What about His mind? Post-lapse also?

What about His spirit? Post-lapse also?

While I can agree that His flesh was fallen flesh, Jesus is so much more than flesh to me. His most important attributes are not fallen.


Therein lies the disagreement. It is, perhaps, not a disagreement on the facts, but on the focus.

You're itching about Jesus having fallen flesh like us, and therefore scratch accordingly. I'm itching to show that we - selfish sinners that we are - are NOT like Jesus, and therefore need to be transformed.

We must "reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." That's obviously pre-Fall. And that's where Jesus was. That's where we need to be.

I have no time to dwell on that which needs no fixing, because time is short and I still have much to fix. So while you wrestle and wrangle over what kind of flesh Jesus had, there are those of us who wrestle and wrangle over what kind of mind/spirit we don't have, but must have if we will meet Jesus in peace.


We must choose wisely upon what we dwell.


I've asked postlapsarians that question over the years, and they either answer as you did, or they ignore it completely. Not once has any postlapsarian immediately answered something like, "As far as the flesh goes, Jesus was like Adam after the Fall; but His mind and spirit and character were like Adam before the Fall. So if you're looking at His humanity as a whole, without qualifications, then Jesus was a bit of both, not just like either one."

Some of them will eventually agree to this answer. Others, for whatever reason, never give a straight answer one way or the other. It is as if their continued study of Christ's flesh has paralyzed them regarding Christ's humanity. It is sad.

"The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us."

Was my question different from Colin's? I thought he said that a change in character is what we need, as opposed to a change in the flesh. Then he asked if we can do that without Jesus doing it before us. That's exactly my question.

Let me put it another way: Since my character must change from evil to holiness, did Jesus have to do the same thing that I must?

For me, and those of my ilk, the answer is very simple: No, most definitely not!

There is no hindrance to admitting, even proclaiming that Jesus had differences, significant differences, major differences, crucial differences to fallen sinners such as Adam after his transgression. Why am I so geeked about Christ's differences to me? Because these areas where I am different from Jesus are like itchy rashes that need to be scratched.

What the dying sinner needs to see is how different he is from Jesus, and that difference - his selfishness contrasted with God's love - is what will lead him to repentance and redemption.

In relation to this thread, how would I respond to someone who says that Jesus desired and lusted to sin? "You desire and lust to sin; Jesus did not. You need to change. Repent while there is still hope."

Arnold, the Son of man isn't the identity we need to see differences in in order to sense our need of redemption from our sinfulness and our humanity - and redemption's spiritual experience and harmony with God we have by justification by faith...

His demonstration of God's character is the difference which draws us to learn of God's love - never negating the need in redemption through Jesus of dying to self which Calvary facilitates.

Christ's righteousness is his character, which is imparted to us as we are made perfect in our Christian lives and actions: we seek to be changed into his likeness, but only because the Son of God, who in his holiness is so separate from his creation turned sinful, [u[became one like us[/u] - "was made like his brethren" in order to meet us where we are.

The incarnation wasn't primarily to show us how to live righteously by faith: God's Son became man to save his people from their sin. Why this obvious point bears repeating here is because what attracts us to friendship with the Saviour is what we have in common with him, not where we differ.

Wherein we differ with the Son of God raises alarm in us, but such acquaintance gives way to friendship only as we find common ground with the Son of man and thereby find a basis on which to spend time together, doing activities together facilitated by our common interest.

This common ground wasn't a matter of emphasis to loss of many other topics until it was dispensed with by our scholars. The true focus is truly the righteous mind and character of Christ our Saviour, imputed and imparted to us, respectively, by faith, our qualification and fitness for seeing Jesus coming with all the glory of heaven, after we have been the fine linen of the Lamb's bride. There is little need to mention the humanity of Christ other than to state its true sinfulness, alongside the mind of Christ, before launching into the beauty of justification with the mind of Christ in us, and all that follows, except that, now, having stated this truth in its right place in the gospel, there develops a discussion of alternative views...

Since my answer to my own question which you regard as precisely your question is: No, the only other question remaining is what differences Jesus has as a man within such an everlasting Gospel: the Saviour has 4 differences I am aware of.

First, he is God's literal Son, not a son by adoption or creation.

Second, he was righteous/justified by faith from conception, so as to be the Saviour: humanity is a nature he took and is not his own, so this exception he is allowed.

Third, he never sinned, but we have.

Fourth, while we learn righteousness and obedience usually by first falling into sin, he learned obedience and righteousness by never first falling into sin.

Nevertheless, he reached us where we are, degraded by sin, taking our nature upon him...to lead us into friendship with the Redeemer, and all that follows from that, ending in eternal life after the wedding of the Lamb.

Here's how the Amplified Bible puts it:



This is how I understand what was said. Christ was tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning. He took our heredity to share in our temptations, or, to say the same thing in another way, to be tempted in every respect as we are.



This is the way the paragraph reads.



The phrase says that what these results were is shown in the *history* of His earthly ancestors. When one considers the history of Christ's ancestors, one thinks of the things which Christ's ancestors did.

E. J. Waggoner comments:



This looks to me to be the same thought.



The point is that He took the heredity of those who did such things (He also bore their sins).



That Christ took the heredity of these things as well.



Why not? Note the point here is one of heredity. Ellen White is emphasizing that Christ *accepted* the working of the law of heredity, a heredity which was demonstrated in the life of His ancestors. He came with such a heredity as we have; He had scoundrels in His lineage just as we do.

When you say you do not agree, is it your contention that Christ's heredity was different than ours? That Christ's heredity did not include the tendencies or inclinations which are passed by heredity?



The whole issue is over this point. Many disagree that Christ's flesh had the same hereditary influences that ours has. S. N. Hasked read from the Desire of Ages, where Ellen White wrote that Jacob's ladder could not fail by a single step, but had to reach all the way to where we are, and commented:



Many disagree with this point. Indeed, again, this is what the controversy is over: Did Christ assume fallen humanity with all its heredity inclinations?



Regarding the character, I don't see a difference in how you view things and how A. T. Jones, or E. J. Waggoner, or W. W. Prescott, or the others I have mentioned throughout this thread see this issue. Do you seem some difference between your view and Jones or Waggoner or Prescott on this issue?



Same question. Would you please present some quote by Jones or Prescott or Waggoner which presents an idea like the one you're mentioning here, that you disagree with?

Here's something Waggoner said in regards to the mind and the flesh:

As Waggoner put it:



Also Jones:



Regarding Christ's spirit, I don't know how that would differ from His mind.



I've been trying to find out what you think the facts are. That's been my focus in this particular thread. Christ's taking fallen nature isn't my normal main focus, as you should know from other threads.



Because this is what has been challenged. This used to be universally accepted within Adventism, but that changed around fifty years ago. The teaching of righteousness by faith ties into this question.



I'm not sure why. Everyone knows we need to be transformed, right?



This was the burden of Jones and Waggoner's preaching. Also Prescott in 1896. This seems to be what caught Ellen White's attention in his preaching that Christ took our flesh, is that his (Precott's) preaching made clear that fallen man could keep the law.



Waggoner wrote:



It seems to me there is an imperative to consider Christ as He was. The Christ actually became flesh (which was understood to mean such flesh as we) was of major import to Adventists in the time of Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott.

Here's one example of the importance of this. Paul's point in Heb. 4:15ff is that Christ took our fallen nature in order to be able to have compassion upon us and help us in our need. Now if Christ does not know what it is like to be tempted like we are, it should be clear that His experience is different than if He does.

Again, regarding focus, I've not started any of these threads dealing with Christology, at least not in the last several years, if ever. I participate in them as I see what I perceive to be errors expressed, but it wouldn't be accurate to characterize this as my focus.

A. T. Jones dealt with this in his 1896 sermons. This is the context of his statement that Jesus was "sinful as we," a statement which is, as far as I've seen, always taken out of context, and the point that Jones was actually making is set aside.

Jones pointed out that Christ not only took our nature, but He took our sins. He was "laden with sin," but "not His sin, but ours." This sin was sin in a far greater amount that we will have to deal with, as He bore the sin of the world. So Christ bore the sin of the world in sinful flesh, tempted in every respect as we are, overcoming these temptations, with all this heavy burden, by faith. He did this in order to sympathize with our weakness, to share in our sorrows and temptations, and to provide an example for us. If we give to His humanity a power it is not possible for us to have, we break the completeness of His humanity.

It's interesting that A. T. Jones started out his 1895 General Conference sermons dealing with Christ's taking sinful flesh by pointing out that Christ did so in order to reveal the Father.

Was that a Yes or a No? Since my character must change from evil to holiness, did Jesus have to do the same thing that I must?

BTW, does anyone know where Rosangela is? This is the kind of thing she usually gets into.

I don't think you're characterizing the issue correctly. We need to do what Christ did. Both Scripture and the SOP make this clear.

Our problems involve our flesh, and the fact that we have sinned. Christ solved both these problems by coming in sinful flesh and bearing our sin.

I'm not aware of a single statement in Scripture or the SOP that suggests that we are to do what Christ did not do.

Here's one: Turn and live!

We agree that we must do what Jesus did, with just a few important exceptions. But Colin is the one who characterized it this way. He said that Jesus did before us what we must do ourselves. I'm just trying to see how you, as a postlapsarian, answer his question.

One of the problems I see with many postlapsarians is that they walk by sight. In order for them to believe that they can do something, they have to have seen Jesus do the same thing. "Thus saith the Lord" is insufficient for them; they need a "thus did the Lord."

As evidenced by your queasiness to answer this particular question, it seems that some postlapsarian statements are made with more vehemence and implying a greater scope than is warranted. But I also see a certain fear of stating the facts as they are. If you think that Jesus needed a character transformation like I do, then say Yes. If not, just say No. Colin eventually did.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I consider our flesh problems insignificant compared to our mind/spirit/character problems. The battle against ungodliness is waged in the character, not the body.


I'm still waiting for Colin to answer, but maybe you can answer in the meantime. Is there a "fundamental difference" between one who has sinned and one who has not?


Is there a "fundamental difference" between one who has sinned and one who is "bearing" sin?

And looking at it from one of your favorite topics: How does Jesus bearing MY sin help ME hate sin with a perfect hatred? IOW, how does it effect my repentance and reconciliation to God? More universally, how does it effect the repentance and reconciliation of the jungle heathen who has never heard of Jesus?

A while back you wrote:



I responded:



To which you responded:



To which I responded that I didn't see anything in this particular post which said what you were suggesting, and asked you to present something specific, to which I see no replay.

Now you write:



I request the same thing here. Please quote something by some postlapsarians which would substantiate that idea that many of them walk by faith and not by sight.

I don't understand why you think this sort of thing is acceptable. Please stop making unfounded derogatory characterizations about postlapsarians, or any other people with whom you disagree. Please limit the scope of your comments to ideas being discussed.

Assuming "turn" means essentially the same thing as "repentance," then turning and living is not something Christ did not do, as Christ repented on behalf of the human race.



There are many statements which tells us we must follow Christ. Here's one:



This even ties the concept to Christ's taking our fallen nature.

I'm not aware of a single statement in inspiration that says that we are called to do something which Christ did not do. I'm pretty sure there are direct statements saying the reverse (i.e., that we are not called to do anything which Christ Himself did not do) although I can't recall such a statement specifically enough to find it; perhaps someone else can.

I should point out that the way you put what Colin said is a bit unclear. You said:



This makes it sounds as if you think we need to do something by ourselves, which I'm sure Colin was not saying. Christ was an example for us to follow. Christ, by faith, united the divine nature to sinful flesh, something He made possible for us to do as well. Our salvation comes by way of divinity united to sinful flesh.



As I pointed out, I think you are characterizing the issue incorrectly. Rather than negatively characterizing me as being queasy, I'd suggest a more accurate characterization of the issue.

Any question which necessitates the answer that Christ is requiring of us things He did not do I think is suspect. Again, I'm not aware of a single statement of inspiration which suggests that Christ is calling us to do things He did not do, while I'm aware of countless statements enjoining us to follow Him, to walk as He walked, to overcome as He overcame.



This is no doubt possible, although I've been asking for examples of this from postlapsarian contemporaries of Ellen White, and not seen this.



If you characterize things in a way that would imply that Christ must have sinned, of course one cannot answer such a question in the positive. But such characterizations seem to be demonstrating a certain fear of stating the facts as they are, which is that Christ overcame sin by faith, much more so than any of us need to, because He not only took sinful flesh, but bore our sin in that flesh. Christ was righteous by faith, and blazed the pathway to righteousness by faith.

Continuing on a question I was asking earlier, Ellen White endorsed the postlapsarian of W. W. Prescott. The sermon title was "The Word Made Flesh," and the themes were typical postlapsarian themes. Now given that Ellen White endorsed the sermon, would you agree it is reasonable to assert that she at least agreed with the central focus of the sermon? Assuming this is true, it would follow that Ellen White was a postlapsarian, at least to the extent that W. W. Prescott expressed by way of his sermon.

If you consider the sermon "The Word Became Flesh" by W. W. Prescott, and Ellen White's response to that, it is evident that she viewed the issues brought up by Prescott to be very important. A similar observation holds in view of the 1888 message as a whole. A lot of the teaching of righteousness by faith by both Jones and Waggoner involved that Christ overcame sin in the flesh.



You've got "fundamental difference" in quotes, so this seems to have a context. What's the context? Certainly their is the fundamental difference that one has sinned, but Christ bore our sin in sinful flesh, so that "fundamental difference" may be mitigated by this fact.



Clearly our understanding how Christ overcame could have an impact on our experience. To address just one aspect of your question, A. T. Jones in his 1895 GC sermons on Christology, started off with the point that Christ's taking our fallen nature revealed the Father to us. It's not difficult to understand why this should be so. Certainly it's easier for us to understand a revelation of God in fallen flesh than not, since that is what we have.



This is quite a profound question, which I think would merit its own thread. It's one I've thought a lot about, but I couldn't answer it briefly. Colin should have some good thoughts on this question as well, so I'd welcome a new thread on this question for that reason as well.

We change into what he perfectly built from the start of his life.

That we change our character and he didn't, doesn't mean that his experience isn't essentially the same as our experience of faith: to be become Saviour of the world, it obliged him never to fall into temptation, thus producing the prefect righteousness qualifying him as the Lamb of God. While we change from a carnally minded character into a Christlike character, he must be made like us in order for his character to be at all relevant to us in salvivic terms.

No, he didn't change his character, but his character as is is relevant since the only difference between his human existence and ours is that he was a "Christian" from conception and managed never to sin. The battle with sinful flesh for each of us is the battles and war he fought, too, and won: Gal 5:17 spells out the mechanism of the victory of faith. Since he fought the self same spiritual battles in sinful flesh, his character is our very hope of obtaining through the gospel the glory of God.

Colin, what do you think of the idea that Christ not succeeded, it would not have been possible for us to succeed. I'm asking this question not from an atonement standpoint. Iow, if Christ had sinned, obviously that would have ended the whole Plan of Salvation, as well as the Great Controversy, right there. What I'm asking is if you see an aspect to how Christ's victory made our victory possible. Do you see that this is what happened, in some direct sense (i.e. not considering that failure would have disqualified Him from being a spotless lamb/perfect sacrifice/etc.)

in reading this quote, "man" and "humanity" does not necessarily mean fallen. we are human, Jesus became human. adam had human nature and fell, yet adam did not have the weakened human nature that Christ came in. one would already have to have the preconception that she was talking about "fallen nature" to read that into her statement. at least i have never read that article in that light.



this is what the article referred to and the point i have always gotten from it. id say we all kind of suck at it, maybe myself more than all.

Regarding the following, there's a couple of ways of knowing this is referring to fallen man:



First of all, the context of her receiving these letters was that Ellen White was preaching with A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner at this time. The letters were coming to her as a result of their preaching, which preaching involved Christ's taking the fallen nature of man.

Secondly, consider the objection raised. "Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations." This can only mean "Christ could not have had the same (fallen) nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations."

It cannot mean "Christ could not have had the same (unfallen) nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations," because this is not an objection any person would make as a result of hearing Jones and Waggoner preach (or even irrespective of that).

Tom & co:

Have you considered answering this question from the Bible alone?

____________

From Scripture, here are some texts which come to mind:



This tells us that Christ was tempted in every respect as we are, yet didn't sin. A littler earlier in the same book:



This brings out that Christ took part of the same flesh and blood (hence the same flesh) that we take part of.



This brings out that according to the flesh, Christ proceeded from David.



This brings out that Christ came in flesh like ours in order that the law might be fulfilled in us. A significant point is that Christ condemned sin in the flesh, meaning that we, in our flesh, cannot sin with impunity. If Christ had come in some other flesh than ours, it's difficult to see how He could have condemned sin in our flesh.





The key word here is "but." Christ had a will to be denied, just like we have. Paul points out that Christ "pleased not Himself."

how do you explain adam and eve giving into temptation? they didnt have fallen human nature.




[color:#3333FF]how do we know? we werent there. i read her statement to say that Jesus became fully man/human just as He is fully God. no more, no less. and that is her point in the following quotes, unless you read an unspoken "fallen" in there, in which case we will have to kindly agree to disagree.



that we understand it differently is ok, i believe. because i still believe Christ is fully able to give me the victory over every sin. and that is the point, isnt it?

It doesn't sound like you're following the logic of the argument here. The objection raised is "Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations." What I said is that no one would argue "Christ could not have had the same nature as man (i.e. a human nature as opposed to a non-human nature) for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations."

Nobody has this objection. That is, nobody argues, "Christ could not have been a human being (i.e. could not have had a human nature), because if He were, he would have fallen into temptation, like Eve did." Everybody recognizes that Christ was a human being, and had the nature of a human, as opposed to a non-human.

The objection being raised was that Christ did not have the nature of a *fallen* human, because if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations as those that we fall under. That she is arguing that Christ had a human nature doesn't make any sense. A human nature as opposed to what? That she is arguing that Christ took our fallen nature makes sense; He took a fallen nature as opposed to an unfallen nature, which is exactly what those with whom she was preaching were saying.

How? She was deceived, and he was biased. Subtle choices: they could sin and they did.

As for the content, meaning and understanding of Jones and Waggoner's preaching in the 1888 era, it is documented and reported on and endorsed as the truth, and evidently they argued for Christ's assumed humanity being our sinful, fallen, degraded humanity...but they the more vociferously argued the Jesus' mind was righeous, by faith and the indwelling of the Spirit of God!

Sound like a Christian to you? I mean, Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, so his life experience is that of a Christian, should it not be? Is it not so.

Yes there is, but the "fundamental difference" is in action, not in nature!

This "lapsarian" divide is a misnomer: both before and after Adam sinned, he was filled with the Holy Spirit, except when he sinned he wasn't following the Spirit's leading. That sounds obvious, but so is that Christ "was made like unto his brethren": sinful flesh and mind of Christ - ie. Holy Spirit indwelling the believers - is Adam's post fall experience!!!

Character isn't the location of the battle over sin in us: the flesh and optional carnal mind is the location of the battle, which the Spirit wins hands down should we be submissive to Christ and following him when suffering temptation. Character shows the results of that battle, but is not the locus of the battle itself; the mind is, as we choose between our flesh's sinfulness and Christ's righteous character - forged from the same choices over the same moral issues of the same sinful flesh, with the original "mind of Christ".

The "fundamental difference" is Jesus' perfect record of choices, not his human essence - which is essentially sinful, but on whom and which, that is him and his humanity, corruption never rested. That is, he never incurred guilt, never corrupting his humanity by sinning.

As for repentance, he gave us his example, but he actually participated in John's baptism of repentance...!

What was his experience of repentance??! He had one: "fulfill all righteousness" was how he obtained his baptism, don't forget. Since our lives & repentance are typically imperfect, and his life & repentance was definitely perfect, what sort of repentance was it? We repent of sins committed, but he, being burdened with sinful flesh but having developed no sinful character, could repent perfectly....of his sinful flesh, and its sinful inclinations. He repented of the inclination & potential to sin, of his humanity.

Does that make sense? It is the fulness of righteous experience for humans, isn't it? For him it was characteristic; for us, it is the new experience once we have overcome sinful habits, and dispensed with our sinful propensiities - none of which "we need retain" (she says): we have these perfect repentances each time we overcome temptation, really, but Jesus has the whole whack waiting for us, in the end, as we perfect a personal reflection of Christlikeness - which Jesus shall certify while we remain oblivious to it, modest...and meek.

How about that?...

Now that's an interesting way to look at it. Let's see.

1 John 3:5 - And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.

1 Peter 2:22 - Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth

Therefore, we know that there is no sin in Christ.

What is sin? The short answer is in 1Jn 3:4 - sin is the transgression of the law.

Does God's law encompass desires and lusts? Can lusts have a moral quality?

Matthew 5:28 - But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

1 Peter 2:11 - abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul

It looks to me that lusts are addressed by God's law. IOW, one can break God's law - sin - by having sinful lusts.

But we know that Jesus did not sin. Therefore, Jesus did not have sinful lusts.

Is the lust to sin sinful? If it wasn't, I don't know what would be.

So my answer is, no, Jesus did not desire and lust to sin.

Since I just did a sermon on repentance this morning, I think the topic is pretty fresh in my mind.

In all my studies, I have not come across the idea of vicarious repentance. I agree that turn=repentance. Specifically, here's the verse I had in mind:


How can Jesus repent in our behalf? Can HE turn from MY evil ways? The only way that makes sense is if He gives up on me and turns away, leaving me to be lost in my sin.

But Him repenting for me? That makes as much sense as someone else eating for me - I receive no direct benefit. Repentance is a personal matter between the sinner and God. A third party can only help by being a catalyst for reconciliation. But one cannot repent for another.

If Jesus really did repent for all of us, then we have no need to repent for ourselves. All the calls to repentance, which I did a fair amount of this morning, is for naught.

No, I don't think Jesus repented. At least, not the repentance that we are called to do. I can say to you, to myself, and to everyone else around, "Repent, and turn from your sins!" I cannot say that to Jesus.

Jesus never had to turn away "from the wickedness which he committed." We must.

Neither am I saying that. So that makes two of us not talking about doing something "by ourselves."

I was talking about something "we must do ourselves" not something "we must do BY ourselves." There's a huge difference.

Here's an inspired statement that highlights the difference:
There, something we do ourselves, but not by ourselves.

In case someone wants a Bible verse, here's one:
In any case, it's still not correct to say that everything we must do, Jesus did first. It might have been true for unfallen Adam, but not sinners like us.


His divinity united to our sinful flesh. It is His matchless charms that we need, not His fallenness.


It is by beholding His matchless charms that sin loses its attraction to us - we are saved from sin.

"Don't drag His mind into it."

What prompted Jones to have to say such a thing? Why would anyone think that Christ's mind was sinful?

Yes, it seems somebody back then was overly zealous in some aspects. But I don't have the quotes handy. Maybe you know why Jones had to fix them on that point?

Some questions:

1) Are we called to repent for anything other than sin?
2) Are the inclination & potential to sin counted as sin?
3) Will the 144k, after the close of probation, after Jesus leaves the MHP, have the inclination & potential to sin? Will they be repenting of these?
4) Will the saved, living on the New Earth, have the potential to sin? Will it require repentance?
5) If the potential to sin needs no repentance, is it then the inclination to sin that is problematic, and must be repented of?
6) Did Jesus have an inclination to sin?

Anyway, your statement there sounds like you hold to the prelapsarian definition of sin.

So, are you saying that there is no "fundamental difference" in the "nature" of a sinner and a sinless person? That there was no "fundamental difference" between Adam's nature before the Fall and after?

Arnold asked in an ealier post about Rosangela, therefore, I also want to let everybody here know that Rosangela has been away since December 17th where she would have very little Internet access. She should be back anytime now.

I think Jones was trying to nip in the bud similar misunderstandings as what we've seen in this thread.



Why indeed. It's a mystery why some of ideas are suggested in regards to the postlapsarian position. I think it may be due to not thinking things through.



Not necessarily. It's easy to understand how certain statements could be misunderstood. A lot of this problem we see here, with confusion, for example, as to what "nature" involves.



If you mean in regards to points Jones had to fix in 1895, I don't think there are any. There are some quotes in regards to the Holy Flesh theology, that Christ didn't take our nature, but took the nature of Adam after the fall. These were "fixed," but not by Waggoner and Haskell. It seems likely to me that Jones would have addressed this as well (this was around 1900), but I'm not aware of quotes by him doing so.



I know EGW was careful to do the same thing as Jones, and S. N. Haskell as well. Somehow the idea that Christ took a nature like ours implies to many that this would make Him sinners like we are.

Tom,

Thanks for your comments. I'll just comment on one part:
Yes, what "nature" involves is a sticky point. In my studies, it seems that postlapsarians generally take it to mean just part of what "humanity" means, considering that EGW said human nature is composed of the physical, mental, and moral aspects. OTOH, the "other guys" generally have a more holistic perspective, including man's moral characteristics.

But what do you think of Colin's last post?
He seems to be saying that there is no fundamental difference in the nature of a sinner and a non-sinner.

Furthermore, he makes a comment focusing on post-Fall Adam's "sinful flesh + mind of Christ" experience. While Adam did experience that, if that's what "post-Fall" is supposed to mean, it blurs the distinction between pre- and post-conversion man. But I guess that would explain the "He is like us" focus, as opposed to the "we need to become like Him" motif.

Any thoughts on my other posts, staring with #107822? I'm especially interested in your thoughts on repentance, particularly on the concepts of one person repenting for another and Jesus repenting for the "inclination & potential to sin." These are directly related to the problems the sinner needs to address, and how he must go about it.

No, that's not the only way. He could take your sin upon Him, and repent of that. Christ repented of our evil ways. Rather than turning away from us, He turned away from sin (not His, but ours), enabling us to do the same.



Actually there are quite a few EGW statements which speak of repenting on behalf of another. I don't have access to them right now, but here's one I found:





Christ kept the law for all of us, didn't He? Can we conclude from this that we therefore have no need to keep it?

Something to bear in mind is that our sin was imputed to Christ. As by virtue of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, we feel as if we were ourselves righteous (even though all of our righteousness is actually Christ's), so Christ, by virtue of our sin being imputed to Him, felt as if He were sinful, even though all His "sin" was actually ours. These feelings of Christ are treated by many psalms. For example:

Christ took our sin upon Him, which made our sins His (as His righteousness is ours). Christ turned away from that sin, enabling us to turn away from sin as well.

By the way, this is a theme which A. T. Jones dwelt upon in great detail in his 1895 sermons.

Here's an EGW statement discussing Christ's taking our nature:



I don't understand how "nature" here can be understood in the "holistic" way you are suggesting.

This is just a specific example, but it seems to me you run into all sorts of difficulties if you make the EGW statements speaking of Christ's taking our sinful nature to encompass something more than His taking our sinful flesh. It seems to me that in the context of Christology, "nature" needs to be limited in scope.



I think I'll let you and Colin discuss what you were asking about. To be frank, I had some difficulty understanding both Colin's point and and your response, so I'll sit out on this for awhile.



I think this has been touched upon in other posts, so I'll just make the brief comment here that I think that Jesus repented for more than simply the inclination and potential for sin. I think His repentance encompassed all aspects of sin, and that we are not called upon to repent in some manner that Jesus Christ did not repent.

In his sermons during the 1895 GC session, Jones said several things: “Christ's nature is precisely our nature" (GCB, p. 231); "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" (p. 233); “All the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in his human flesh," yet "not one of them was ever allowed to appear; he conquered them all. And in him we all have victory over them all" (p. 266, 267). Christ "was sinful as we" (p. 302). When confronted with Ellen White's statement of Christ sharing human infirmities but not the passions, he said: "Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag his mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was 'the mind of Christ Jesus" (p. 327).

The 1895 sermons can be found at http://maranathamedia.com/start/index2.p...4&Itemid=57
The context of this passage can be found at pages 223-224 (312 in brackets), and 225 (327 in brackets).

Sure, the fact that Christ took our nature just means He took our body. However, sinful tendencies - the inclinations to disobedience - are in the mind, not in the body.

To combat the Holy Flesh Movement S. N. Haskell read the following from the Desire of Ages:



Then he commented:



So this looks to be including hereditary inclinations.

If all that taking sinful nature meant was having a body like ours, there would be no controversy, as nobody disagrees with this.

Ellen White said that Christ's human nature was "identical to our own." (6MR 111)



This is very similar to what W. W. Prescott taught in his sermon, "The Word Became Flesh" which was specifically endorsed by Ellen White. It's also similar to the following:



This is from "Christ and His Righteousness," made from Signs of the Times articles from the discourses which Waggoner presented in 1888.



Here's what Jones said in context:



Paul said that Christ was made "to be sin for us." Ellen White says that Christ for our sake "became sin itself." Surely phrases like these should be considered in context. All three of Jones, Paul, and EGW were careful in context to explain that Christ was not Himself sinful. Paul said that Christ "knew no sin." Jones called Christ "perfect."

Tom,
What, to you, does taking our sinful flesh exactly encompass? You took issue with Arnolds's "holistic" understanding of "nature" (i.e., the fact that it encompasses the physical, mental and moral aspects). Of course Christ took the physical and mental (intellectual) aspects of our nature, but He didn't take our morally deteriorated condition. And propensities of disobedience belong to the moral (spiritual) realm of our nature.

George Knight's book "Search for Identity" shows the history of how A.T Jones eventually drifted away from Ellen White and Adventism on his road to Pentecostalism. p114

But one point highlighted is the fact that Jones held to a sinFUL nature of Christ while Ellen White taught the reality of the sinLESS nature of Christ (as Richard already pointed out on this board).

To see just why Christ could NOT have our sinFUL nature and still save anyone -- one must read carefully the description Paul gives of the sinFUL nature in Romans 3.

in Christ,

Bob

So here is Romans 3

The Sinful nature of all mankind –


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''



The WORLD condemned under the Authority of the Law that continues to define sin –


19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

In that sinful nature alone -- ALL the WORLD is held accountable and "condemned" as sinners before God. Our very nature is in rebellion against God.

in Christ,

Bob

Ok, let's assume that "nature" does mean what Arnold suggests, the holistic idea, encompassing the spiritual, mental and physical nature of man. Then the fact that Christ took our sinful nature would mean that Christ took a sinful spiritual, mental, and physical nature, wouldn't it?

Regarding what Christ's taking sinful flesh meant, I agree with how our pioneers spoke of it, including Haskel, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, and White. For example, Haskel said:

George Knight wrote that he was out from the get go to show that A. T. Jones was aberrant, which is hardly the proper attitude an historian should take. Anyway, we have Ellen White's endorsements, which render Knight's efforts here largely irrelevant. For example, Ellen White wrote:



So we can see her opinion of those who would wish to discredit Jones or Waggoner because of their falling away.



From Ellen White:



Not "sinless" nature, but "sinful" nature is the human nature Christ took.

Again:



One more:



"Degraded and defiled by sin" is the nature which Christ took.

We also have the testimony of EGW's contemporaries, such as Haskell quoted above.



It sounds like there may be a misunderstanding of what "sinful nature" means here. The understanding of the SDA church up until recently was that Christ took our sinful nature in order to raise us up. For example, from Haskel, quoting Ellen White:

First, I'd like to welcome Rosangela back.


Just to make sure we all realize that I didn't make this up:

And there's more quotes along that vein.


Yes, it would. So, continuing with the assumption that "nature" can be taken holistically, encompassing the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects of man, should we say that Jesus was sinful in these areas? In particular, did Jesus have a sinful spiritual/moral nature?

Clearly not, right? Therefore when the SOP says that Christ took the nature of Adam the transgressor, fallen nature, sinful nature, etc., she must not have had the holistic idea in mind, right?



Isn't this a red herring? I think the understanding of Christ's taking our nature is just what Haskell explained as he read from the Desire of Ages, which says that Christ took our nature. Haskell explained "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

I don't think any of Ellen White or her contemporaries said that Christ had a fallen spiritual or moral nature. Everything I've read from Jones, Waggoner, Haskell, White, etc. is very careful to explain that while Christ took sinful flesh, including hereditary inclinations, the aspects you are referring to were not impacted. Isn't this what Jones' point was in saying, "Do not bring His mind into this?"

Thanks, Arnold! I'm glad to be back. Strange things happen on this earth - long vacation periods can become tiresome.

Three aspects - physical, intellectual and moral. As I see it, propensities of disobedience are clearly within the moral aspect.

I think those things which have to do with moral aspects and to us but not to Christ are not hereditary inclinations, such as Haskell spoke of, in reference to Christ's taking our nature.

Right. But when the SOP says that we need a transformation of nature, she must have had the holistic idea in mind, right?

Of course. Our sinful flesh cannot be transformed.

But she says we are born with propensities of disobedience. Is this within the moral/spiritual realm of our nature or not?

Are you talking about the Baker letter? Or did you have something else in mind? If so, I'd like to see it.

Ellen White taught that Christ took our sinful nature, and that was understood to be "fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

From W. W. Prescott:

Adam failed in his place, and by the offence of one many were made sinners. Jesus Christ gave Himself, not only for us, but to us, uniting Himself to the family, in order that He might take the place of the first Adam, and as head of the family win back what was lost by the first Adam. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is a representative righteousness, just as the sin of Adam was a representative sin, and Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, gathered to Himself the whole family.

But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.

Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity.

Yes, the Baker letter:

"Because of sin, his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience." {13MR 18.1}

So, since when I think of "nature" it is primarily in terms of the holistic paradigm, the view in which the SOP says our "natures" must be transformed, when somebody asks me if Jesus had a sinful nature, unless "nature" is defined to exclude the spiritual/moral aspects of man, I should answer clearly and emphatically, "No!" Agreed?

If she was correct in what she wrote to Baker, those "hereditary inclinations" would include the "inherent propensities of disobedience" with which we are born.

Anyway, here are some quotes about what children can get at birth:

Far from being a red herring, this is the crux of my beef against postlapsarianism. Hence, when asked, "Did Jesus have a sinful nature," I always answer, No.

Consider the nature of Adam after his fall. Did he have a sinful physical nature? Did he have a sinful spiritual/moral nature? I answer: Yes, yes.

But when asked about Jesus, I answer: Yes, no. Therefore, some have labeled me as having the "hybrid" view. And some, who deal only with broad brush strokes (who, I suppose, have not considered that pre-Fall Adam would get "no, no" for those questions) have labeled me as prelapsarian.

In any case, if we're talking about physical nature, I believe Jesus had what Adam had after his fall. But if we are talking about nature in general, with no qualifications, they are not the same.


Since human nature includes the spiritual/moral nature, and some would argue that this aspect is more definitive of what it means to be human as compared to one's physical nature, it was overzealous to say that "In His human nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you." If Jones had said, "In His physical nature there is not a particle of difference between him and you" then he would not have had to clarify the confusion about bringing Christ's mind into it, as the mind is an important part of human nature.

Tom has posted many SOP passages which clearly teach Jesus was indeed born with the same sinful nature we are born with. Unlike us, though, Jesus never once acted out the unholy tendencies and clamorings that warred against Him. This is the same state of those who experience rebirth and walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man abiding in Jesus . The clamorings of fallen flesh cannot contaminate character while thus oriented. Once our "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character) is crucified we are no longer counted guilty in the eyes of God. Covered with the blood and righteousness of Christ, empowered to live sinlessly, maturing daily in the fruits of the Spirit - we stand before God and the Universe blameless, holy, undefiled, and perfect. In the same way, Jesus possessed sinful flesh nature without incurring condemnation or contamination of character.

Did Jesus have an "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character)?

MM,

Are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature? According to the passage quoted by Arnold, "fathers transmit to their children their own ... enfeebled ... moral powers." Did Jesus have enfeebled moral powers?

More or less. I would certainly agree a question like this should not be answered "yes," without clarification. However, I wouldn't answer it "no" either without clarification.

Actually, the way you put it (that Jesus Christ had a sinful nature) is something I would address on the spot. If we say "had," that can give the impression that Jesus did something (like sin) to get that nature. OTOH saying Jesus "took" that nature is clearer, and this is the language that the SOP uses (as well as her contemporaries).

I wouldn't say "if she was correct" in what she wrote to Baker, but something like "if what she said in the Baker letter means what I think it means ..." as there is a lot of debate as to what she was wishing to say in the Baker letter. Given that it was a private letter, not intended for public consumption, and we don't know what Baker was teaching, I think it would be better to do as she suggested and concentrate on works she intended to be read publicly.



As good parents, there were things which would not have been transmitted to Jesus, just as these things need not be transmitted to other children who also had good parents (noting that, of course, in the case of Jesus, there was only one human biological parent).

A better question to ask is, "Did Jesus take a sinful nature," and if asked that, you could respond, "Jesus Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature."

It looks like the crux of your beef may be based on certain misunderstandings.



In context, it is clear what Jones was referring to. When Jones said, "Don't bring His mind into it," so that the mind was excluded, what is left?

What Prescott, Jones, and Waggoner taught is all very clear. Haskell presented the same thought in reading from The Desire of Ages and explaining, "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

In context, what you say re: Jones may be true. But keep in mind that the "not a particle of difference between him and you" was 50 pages before "Don't bring His mind into it." That's A LOT of context in between. He should have said it upfront.

But I'll have to take a break until next week. I have a sermon to do tomorrow. I'll be back.

Ellen White wrote:



Should we find fault with her as well, since she didn't explain upfront what you suggested Jones should have?

My nature is human, not angelic. In that context, Christ's was identical to mine.

But look at the immediate context of Jones' statement. Two paragraphs after "not a particle of difference between him and you" we find this:

When he's speaking of "human nature" that is in no wise different from ours - a point so important to him that he believes our assurance of salvation depends on it - was he merely talking about Christ's physical nature, completely separate from His mind and spiritual/moral nature? If so, take this as one piece of evidence why I say postlapsarians have an inordinate fascination with physical matters.

His point is the same as Ellen White's, the point that Haskell made in quoting her above, as well as Prescott in the sermon I quoted. There is a ladder which connects divinity with fallen humanity (divinity united with "flesh of sin" is how Prescott puts it). Sister White speaks of Christ's taking our human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. If this ladder had missed by one rung of reaching us, we would have been lost. This is fallen human nature, with all its hereditary inclinations is how Haskell explained EGW's DA statement.

Here's a statement from Waggoner:

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.

The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18

If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities and been subject to all the temptations of His brethren. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We first quote 2 Cor. 5:21:

For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul says to the Galatians that "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.

In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Heb. 2:18; 4:15, 16.

One more point and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2) and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus by bringing Him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harboured an evil desire nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. When He lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that he should be holden of it," because he "knew no sin."

But someone will say, "I don't see any comfort in this for me. To be sure, I have an example, but I can't follow it, for I haven't the power that Christ had. He was God even while here on earth; I am but a man." Yes, but you may have the same power that He had if you want it. He was "compassed with infirmity," yet He "did no sin," because of the Divine power constantly dwelling within Him. (Christ and His Righteousness)

Ellen White used language similar to Jones. I'm not understanding why the change in criteria while speaking of one or the other. Jones is taken to task because He says the human nature Christ took is the same as ours, yet Ellen White says the same thing, saying it was "identical" to our own. Jones says our salvation lies in this fact. Ellen White says Christ's humanity is everything to us, and the if the ladder which comes to meet us had failed by a single step, we would have been lost.

The emphasis of White, Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, Haskell, etc. was that Christ humbled Himself to meet us where we are, uniting divinity with humanity, so that by faith we may obtain victory while encumbered in sinful flesh, just as Christ did. Christ blazed the path for us, making it possible for us to do the same. We see this emphasis again and again.

For example, Prescott said

No! And neither do believers who are abiding in Jesus, as it is written -

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Ephesians
4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Jesus received from Mary all the traits and weaknesses and imperfections common to the human race. All the faculties of mind and body He inherited from Mary were physically and morally depleted. Listen:

DA 48
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

Possessing such a nature and body, however, is not a sin, nor does it corrupt or contaminate the character. Sin is not inherited; instead, it is cultivated. And, praise the Lord, Jesus never cultivated sin. Jesus reined in His appetites and passions and kept them under the control of a sanctified will and mind thus they were holiness unto the Lord. So it may be with believers who crucify self and abide in Jesus. Listen:

TE 216
If Christians will keep the body in subjection and bring all their appetites and passions under the control of enlightened conscience, feeling it a duty that they owe to God and to their neighbor to obey the laws which govern health and life, they will have the blessing of physical and mental vigor. They will have moral power to engage in the warfare against Satan; and in the name of Him who conquered appetite in their behalf, they may be more than conquerors on their own account. {Te 216.1}

3T 84
You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. (3T 84)

14 MR 294
Often Satan conquers us by our natural inclinations and appetites. These were divinely appointed, and when given to man, were pure and holy. It was God’s design that reason should rule the appetites, and that they should minister to our happiness. And when they are regulated and controlled by a sanctified reason, they are holiness unto the Lord. {14MR 294}

But are the propensities of disobedience in the physical, intellectual or spiritual/moral aspect of our nature?

Also, what does Ellen White mean when she says that Christ "is a brother in our infirmities, but not possessing like passions. As the sinless One, his nature recoiled from evil" {ST, August 7, 1879 par. 18}?


Ellen White says that Seth "inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin" {1SP 60.2}.

EGW sometimes used "nature" in the holistic sense. Did Jones ever do that?

When Jones said our salvation lies in Jesus being like us - not a particle of difference - was he talking ONLY about His physical nature? When EGW said that Christ's "humanity" is everything to us, was she talking ONLY about His physical nature?

I'd be surprised if he didn't, as this is a normal meaning of "nature." For example, it's very likely that Jones spoke of one's nature being transformed, which couldn't be referring to heredity.



When Jones spoke, he distinguished between the mind and the flesh. He explained that Christ's mind was different than ours, but not His flesh, which was identical to ours.

In Ellen White's statement, that Christ's humanity is everything to us, from the context, it looks to me like she is speaking of the same thing Prescott was. The logic is the same, and the language very similar, and the time period is shortly after Prescott's sermons (I quoted from Prescott a bit earlier in this thread, to get an idea of what Prescott was saying).

Such inherited propensities affect all aspects of human nature save character. New propensities are created when we cultivate sinful old man habits of sin.


She means that Jesus did not create new propensities to sin by cultivating sinful habits.


True, but this insight does not mean we inherit the sinful characters our parents cultivated. Character is not inherited.

Arnold, I am reposting the following post for your convenience:


Do you agree?

Of course I disagree. When Ellen White says that character is not inherited, she obviously means that a noble, righteous character is not inherited, as the context of these types of quotes makes abundantly clear. We cannot inherit a righteous character from sinful parents.

The traits of character (tendencies) we inherit at birth compose the nucleous of our character; after that it will be developed according to the direction we give to it. That's why Adam was created with a righteous character and we are born with a sinful character.

The human race do not stand in the righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation.{ST, June 11, 1894 par. 11}

God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. {AG 344.3}

God's character was reflected in the character of Adam. {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 2}

God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity. {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

Rosangela, is it your view that Christ inherited different tendencies than we inherit? Christ inherited only good or righteous tendencies (if "inherit" is the right word) which I suppose would only have been from the non-Mary part of His DNA?

Also when you say that you disagree with MM's statement that we do not inherit our parent's sinful characters, you believe we can inherit their sinful character? So if they develop a righteous character, we cannot inherit that, but if they develop a sinful character, we can inherit that? Regardless of the character our parents develop, we still inherit a sinful character from them? If this is the case, it doesn't sound like we're inheriting character from them at all; we're inheriting something else, like tendencies.

You seem surprised, as if you didn't know it!
Ellen White says clearly that He didn't possess "the propensities of sin." That "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." This is in contrast with the posterity of Adam, which "was born with inherent propensities of disobedience."


Both husband and wife developing a perfectly righteous character? Perhaps this could be possible if both belonged to the 144,000, but I think they won't be having children at that point of the world's history.


Traits of character are part of the character. How do you see the quotes I posted?

1.a.I think it's a mistake to rely on the Baker letter at all. Really, that's a very poor way to approach the issue.
b.I think you've misinterpreted her meaning in the Baker letter.

2.I'm not understanding what you think happened with Christ. Are you thinking that Christ received only tendencies to good things? It sounds like you are saying, "yes," although you didn't explicitly say so. Assuming so, how do you think this happened? Did God filter out any tendencies that would come from Mary? Or is it possible that some tendencies could come from Mary which God allowed, and only filtered out some tendencies? How would it work that Christ didn't get the inherited tendencies that the rest of us get?

3.I'm not understanding your apparent idea that we can inherit character from our parents. This isn't how genetics works. For example, if learn to play the clarinet, I can't pass that ability to my children genetically. This applies to characteristics I've developed, such as being generous or miserly, kind or mean, and such like. Do you believe that science is wrong in how genetics works, or have I misunderstood you here?

4.I saw the statement you provided, but they don't appear to me to be dealing with the issue. This is from S. N. Haskell:



The first paragraph is from the Desire of Ages, which Haskell read aloud, and the second his explanation. It's clear to see how Ellen White was understood on this issue by her contemporaries, and I agree with their understanding.

5. Do you agree with the following?

I evidently don't share your opinion.


We simply don't know.


We've already gone through all this in the past. If only inherited tendencies can be transmitted, how did Adam transmit sinful tendencies to his children?

The mind becomes more and more infatuated, and the power to overcome temptation is destroyed. The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family. {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}


They don't? I think they have everything to do with the subject at hand, especially these two:

The human race do not stand in the righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation.{ST, June 11, 1894 par. 11}

God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity. {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}


Yes, for I suppose that here he is using "flesh" as not including "mind," and character has to do with "mind."

If the thoughts are wrong the feelings will be wrong; and the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. {RC 301.2}

I'll speak for myself, but I have a feeling R would agree.

I interpret the Baker letter as making a statement of this form: Adam's posterity was born with X, but Jesus did not have X for one moment.

Do you interpret it differently? Do you see in there some way to make it come out another way?

Actually, this is a basic concept when you study child-training in the SOP. Let's look at a quote:
God didn't really have to "filter out any tendencies." Mary did it by not cultivating the foolishness that most do. How do we know? Because she was honored of heaven in a way that is not common. She was a nice girl.

If she was to pass on the tendencies that the rest of us get, she would have had to be like the mother the rest of us have. She was not. God chose wisely.

Furthermore, Jesus' Father was as holy as one can get. His Father was sinless, never transgressed, never experienced the bondage of sin. As such, His Father was never a slave. And the child's lineage is based on his father.

I agree that the old man is crucified in the believer. But I do not agree that it is nonexistent.

But let's assume that the status of the old man in Jesus is identical to the believer. That means that all of this talk about Jesus being like fallen man should be strictly off-limits to the unconverted, right? IOW, this conversation is of no use in the work of turning sinners to saints; it only counts once one is already a saint.

Does that describe the experience of the true believer? Does it describe the experience of Christ?